Skip to main content

Full text of "Blinded By Science"

See other formats

Has science really explained the world we live in? 
This book takes you through a journey of discovery. 
It offers up a very simple alternative explanation 
to our understanding of science. By the end of the 
book your eyes will be truly opened. 


BJ. Wilson, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary 


Dr Carolyn Dean 


Professor Gerald Pollack 
Dept Biology, McGill University 


Professor B.M. Hegde 

Professor of Cardiology, London University 





You have come as a breath of fresh air into my life through your 
epoch making book 

Professor B M Hegde 

I found your book a joy to read. Many of the concepts you discuss 
I've been interested in for years. For the lay audience, this book 
will be a wakeup call about vibrations and electromagnetic 

energies and I hope that students who read it will want to pursue 
research in the many areas that need more study. You wrote an 

excellent book and I hope it reaches a large and diverse audience. 

Magda Havas 

Talk of vibrations and energy is not acceptable in medicine. At 
least that's what I learned in medical school. Scientific inquiry 
is mainly funded by pharmaceutical companies studying drugs. 
So, they aren't about to study vibrations and energy. Even though 
medicine has to admit that placebos work better than drugs, they 

pass that off as "unscientific." What are we left with? A society 
that's educated by TV commercials pushing drugs and an inability 
to take responsibility for our own health. I see in Matthew's book 
a way for people from many different specialties to come together 
and explore the many common sense truths that he exposes. 

Dr Carolyn Dean 

This book is long overdue, and being so easy to read will 
make a large impact. 

Ian Dejongh 



Fantastic chapter... especially the link between water and 
vibrations, vortex and dynamisation, blood and diseases... 
Wow... This book is the 'missing link' so many people all over the 
world were expecting. This is no fiction, this is not only science, 
this is mind-opening! 

Christian Callec 

"This is a highly original and well-written book full of intriguing 
and thought-provoking information. The author's personal journey 
into science leads the reader down some fascinating highways and 
byways and offers up new ways of thinking about old issues. 

Peter Argent" 

A fascinating fresh look at a technology long forgotten. 
I can't wait to get to the next chapter. 

Steve Krattiger 

Wonderfully thought-provoking book. I am sure this book will 
open our minds, and that is what we need in this world, more than 
anything else. But why, I wonder, is science so blind 

Alex St Clair 

Scientists already acknowledge that they can't explain everything 
and how some things work. They also recognise that there is 
a force outside of what they know which makes things work. 
Challenges to scientific theory which includes past overlooked 
evidence such as this one will hopefully increase global sharing 
of knowledge and research and working together to look after the 
global community which is long overdue. 

Jenny Waldie 



A great inspiration! 

Pamela Wheeler 

Absolutely enthralling. Can't wait to read the rest of the book 

Robert Mak 

Thank you for writing about little-known scientists and their work 
- so sad that their work has fallen into near- oblivion. 

Rosemary Mattingley 

It's disappointing that science has turned away from this concept 
and have run in the wrong direction - taking the easier way out. 

Ep Conway 

Just a note to thank you again for your extraordinary efforts in this 
book, and offer our unqualified encouragement. 

Odin Townley 

The idea of vibrations interacting with each other is so obvious, yet 
seems to have eluded many of the scientists of our time. 

Gill Graham 

The book is a wonderful new addition as it carefully tries to bring 
new concepts and emphasises their importance after a careful 
study of many wonderful works. 

Prof. Dr Khalid Mahmood Khawar 



Very easy to read which will appeal to a larger portion of the 
population. Thank you. 

Cath Andison 

I was aware of some of the influences of the moon and planets on 
biological systems, but you show many studies of how much more 
influence there is. It is interesting how "science" is so dogmatic 
and belief oriented about certain things and prides itself on being 
open minded when in fact it is so closed. 

Walter Jaworski 

I applaud your bravery. It is not easy to tackle conventional 
science and allopathic medicine at this point in time without 
being attacked and even having a license removed. I loved your 
introduction. It caught my attention immediately and I really 
hope that many people read the book as it seems to me that 80% 
of people blindly accept whatever they are told and either do not 
research further for themselves or find different and possibly 
better solutions for their problems. I can verify that your statement 

that universities encourage research of only recent papers and 
texts is correct. This is very sad. We have lost so much knowledge 
over the years due to those in authority using the 'witch hunts' 
of all those who had herbal and healing knowledge for their 
destruction. Alternate therapies are denigrated publicly and there 
is even a movement to have them banned by law. 

Cheryl Orian 

Brilliant, refreshing and fascinating. Love it. 

Justine Balaam 



I loved the chapter on plants. Gardening will never be the same. 

Sara Rasmussen 

We owe you a debt of gratitude for making this 
knowledge available. 

Harry Vaughan 

Absolutely refreshing read and succeeds in drawing 
attention to the important work and research of an important 
neglected scientist 

Amelia Blass 

It's books like this that, when read by the masses, will bring some 
light into the area of alternative treatments. Thanks for doing 
this Matthew! 

Rob Mclntyre 

The world could be a much better one for everyone if we all 
opened our eyes and mind. Thanks again for helping us doing it! 

Rebecca Tuge 

Congratulations on the book. You have pulled so much research 
together it seems impossible for anyone to be able to discredit it 

Valmai Hamlin 



This is amazing. I'm so glad that you are sharing this information 
with the world. The next step is getting everyone to wake up and 
seek this information. 

Bobby Flick 

The more I read the more excited I am about your book. I really 
hope that you get this out to a wide audience. Sadly, so many 
people don't read and just accept what they hear on the TV or 
through the media. 

Kevin Trundell 

It's my lucky day finding a link to your book. The reading of the 
intro chapter was brilliant 

Linda David 

It's about time a book like this came along... Such a good read... 
couldn't put the book down! 

Laura Bordin 

I can't stop reading this book, it is so enlightening, combining 
many things I have considered but not understood. 


This is such an informative book and very clearly written. Every 
single thought and idea is direct to the point. Perfectly laid out. 
Thanks for taking your time sharing this to your readers. 

Joanna Hargreaves 



Your explanation is so simplistic that even children 
can understand. Great, now we will have an easy to 
understand reference. 

Constance Tracy Tayler 

Wow. This info has some amazing implications. 

Walter Martin 

No longer do I have to keep many books around to read up on, 

just one. 

Karen Robinson 

Thank you Matthew for shaking some trees, so to speak 
Charles Pienaar 

A chatty, informative read about a deadly serious subject : 
Our health. 

Tony Moody 

This is a ground breaking book with a refreshing perspective. 
Barry O'Donnell 

You put into words all the concepts I've been screaming 
about for years! 

Rosemary Kaessick 



Published by 
Lloyd's World Publishing 2011 

All eights reserved. No part of this publication 
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, 
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, 
without the prior permission in writing from the 
author, nor be otherwise circulated in any form 
of binding or cover other than that in which it is 
published and without a similar condition including 
this condition being imposed on the subsequent 

Copyright © Matthew Silverstone 2011 



ISBN 978-0-9568656-0-1 

Book designed by ThinkLateral 




This book is dedicated to Andrei Danila and 
everyone like him who work too hard. 







15 Introduction 

31 Vibrations 

55 Water 

109 The sun and moon 

157 Magnets 

181 Bees and the birds 

215 Technology 

243 Sir J.C.Bose 

285 Plants 

321 Bibliography 

355 Acknowledgements 

357 About the author 

2 3 




2 5 



The real beginning for me, the initial seed of an idea for 
this book, bizarrely came from a tree. I am sure I have a 
pretty average knowledge of trees amongst a generation 
of other city-dwellers. I can recognise some trees, but 
very few of them. I know they grow leaves in the spring, which fall 
off in the autumn, although I know some trees keep their leaves all 
year round. I know I really love standing next to big trees, and for 
some reason I always find myself gravitating towards them while 
in the local park. I like trees, but besides climbing them as a child 
I don't think I have ever thought much about them. Until that day. 
The day that someone, for whom I had great respect, casually told 
me to go and touch a tree as it would improve my health. 

Well, you can imagine my look of complete incredulity. It was 
probably one of the most ridiculous suggestions I think anyone 
had ever made to me - that I should go to the park, stand next to a 
tree and touch it. Just the thought of it was ridiculous. I am sure I 
had touched trees before, certainly while climbing them as a child, 
but I couldn't remember noticing any physical effect it had on me, 
either positively or negatively. You can understand therefore that I 
had no intention whatsoever of complying with my friend's wishes 
and being made to look an idiot in the park, leaning against a tree, 
getting better. I mean, for how long would I have to do it - one 
minute, twenty minutes, God forbid an hour? And which tree would 
I touch? A big one, a little one? He hadn't given me an instruction 

It came as no surprise to me that I didn't take him up on his 
idea, but what did surprise me enormously, however, was that my 
nineteen-year-old son took up his suggestion. Watching the result 
of him touching a tree completely changed my opinion and in fact 



opened my eyes to a whole new world. I mean, if a tree can affect 
us, what does that mean? The implications seemed to be huge - so 
much so that I wanted to investigate further and see what scientific 
evidence might lie behind this. 

But I have moved on too quickly, without telling you what 
happened to my son that fateful day. To cut a very long story short, 
my son was suffering from severe chronic fatigue. Up until the 
point he became ill, he had been a straight A student who loved 
playing football. As a parent, you try all of the accepted medical 
routes, which in the case of chronic fatigue are very limited, most 
avenues taking you to psychiatrists. But as both my brother and my 
father are Professors of psychiatry, I knew there was no solution 
there - chronic fatigue is a physical problem, not a mental one. So 
what did we have to lose when we turned to "quackery science" as a 
method of treatment? 

We were forced into this position when we were told by the 
doctors and complementary medical practitioners that they had 
run out of options and there was nothing more that could be done. 
It was my wife who suggested we try even the "crazy" ideas, for 
what did we have to lose? I remember that discussion vividly. We 
were sitting at our kitchen table feeling incredibly depressed when 
I turned to my friend sitting next to me and said, "Look how low we 
have sunk - we are actually going to try the services of a healer." 

Now one point I have to make is this: women seem to be much 
more open to taking on new ideas than men. I am not sure I would 
have been brave enough to seek out the help of extreme alternative 
ideas, but it seems that women are much more likely to do so. Well 
done them! Anyway, whatever weird and wonderful things the 
healer, Lloyd Geddes, did are not relevant to this book, as the main 
thing to know is my son got better and was cured by Lloyd within 
six months. Three months into his treatment with Lloyd, my son 

1 7 


became well enough to begin talking to us on the telephone. At this 
stage, though, we could still not be in the same room as him as it 
drained his energy levels too much. So we thought it would be a 
good idea to rent a cottage in the Norfolk countryside for a week, 
where he could sit outside in the garden (we don't have a garden at 
our flat in London), which might help his recuperation. 

You have probably guessed by now that there was a tree in the 
garden. Just an ordinary old tree. It didn't look particularly interesting 
to me. But one morning I saw my son, dressed in just his dressing 
gown, go up to the tree and touch it. We had both been present 
when Lloyd had told us that there are benefits from touching trees, 
but it seems that my son was the only one who thought there was 
something in it. So I watched him for five minutes or so from the 
small kitchen window in the rented cottage, and then he suddenly 
stopped and walked back to the house; it was all over. 

At this point, although the two of us were together in the rented 
cottage, he still was not well enough to talk to me, so I was not able 
at the time to ask him, firstly why he had done it, and then, once he 
had done it, whether there had been any effect on him. During that 
week, I only observed him doing it once; he never went back to the 
tree, or even near it again. Oh well, I thought, there is nothing in 
that idea, then. But how wrong I was. 

It was in fact not until a month or two later, when he had got well 
enough to begin speaking to us, that I mentioned the time when we 
were away and I saw him touching the tree. I asked him about it, and 
he told me that he had to stop touching the tree that one time as it 
had literally made him feel physically sick. Now, to me, previously, I 
probably would normally have dismissed this as psychological stuff, 
it must have been all in his head, but the one nagging doubt was 
this simple fact. The only part of the healer's treatment that made 
my son feel sick was when he treated his liver, and this he tried to 



do as little as possible during his recovery; however, occasionally he 
"pinged" his liver, causing sickness sensations. So I thought, could 
a big tree really "ping" his liver in the same way the healer did? Was 
it really possible that a tree could in any way affect our physical well- 
being? I had to know more, and Lady Luck was on my side. 

Lady Luck in this case was the fact that I live very near to the 
biggest library in the world, the British Library. It is a mere ten 
minutes' walk from my home. As I had become the permanent carer 
for my son, I had given up full-time employment, which meant I 
had plenty of time to pop into the library as often as I wanted to. 
It didn't take long to discover the fact there was nothing seriously 
written on "tree-hugging". It appeared to be just an idea that came 
from the 1960s and was associated with the use of LSD. When 
people took the drug, it seemed to stimulate something within their 
brain that allowed them to see lots of different colours emanating 
from the trees and plants, but pretty much that was all. So I started 
looking elsewhere in the library, searching with strange queries to 
see what would turn up, to see if maybe there were in fact studies 
on trees and their behaviour that could be relevant to my enquiries. 

To say that my journey of research took me to places that I 
did not know existed is an understatement, as you will discover 
in the following chapters. As my journey unfolded, I made one 
fundamental rule - that all of my ideas must come from medical 
and scientific studies, not from opinion or hearsay but from 
proper studies. This was not a problem as there were millions of 
available research documents for me to choose from, and reading 
the bibliography of one article would always lead me onto further 
ideas. However, I have not made any judgements on any particular 
experiment, as scientists seem to do. I have not said that the size of 
the trial was too small to be of value. I take the opinion that if an 
experiment took place and ten people out of ten were cured, then 

J 9 


that experiment worked; I don't think that the research should be 
dismissed because only ten people took part in it. Also, I have not 
dismissed research conducted more than twenty or thirty years or 
so ago, as often happens. In fact, all I require is that the work has 
been conducted by a scientist in the field of research, and that it has 
subsequently been published. 

What I have found most unusual, however, is how biased 
Western ideas are against others from different cultures. Why 
should Western scientists have a monopoly on the truth: a study 
done in Russia by trained scientists in the 1970s should be just 
as acceptable as similar studies in the West. But it is very sad to 
report that, as you read this book, it will become obvious that this is 
not the case amongst research scientists. Most of the authoritative 
work conducted by Nobel prize-winning physicists in Russia into 
the effect of electromagnetic fields on the human body has been 
completely dismissed as incorrect and has been ignored. Only in 
Russia did they ban the microwave cooker when it first came out. 
What did they know that we don't? If it's going to affect my health, I 
feel I have a right to know. 

One of the greatest disappointments, I believe, is the lack of 
progress that has been made in scientific attitudes over the last 
hundred years. In researching this book, I expected that science 
would operate on the basis of change, one piece of science helping 
to build up another piece of science so that each bit led to an 
advancement of knowledge along the road. But in many cases this 
is not what happens. In fact, I have read scientific papers written in 
the past few years that replicate papers written fifty years ago. Why 
would this be necessary? Why repeat the same research? 

To give a simple example, a lot of people currently believe that 
some forms of cancer, such as pancreatic cancer, are in fact viruses. 
In order to cure the cancer, one form of treatment suggests that 



if you can calculate the frequency of the virus, you can blast it out 
of existence by hitting it with the same frequency - the virus will 
literally explode and disappear. This is in fact not a new idea but 
a very old one, discovered in 1935, but it highlights what I have 
found out while researching this book - that there are many major 
discoveries that have been completely ignored and passed over. 
Only today, in 2 on, have scientists started treating pancreatic 
cancer by using ultrasound waves, harnessing a vibration to destroy 
the cancerous cells, the very same principle that was discovered 
nearly eighty years ago. If only scientists had not been restricted 
by dogma, ego and politics, we might already have had cures for 
specific cancers and many lives could have been saved. 

The best way to understand why this happens is to analyse 
the industry of science as a whole, to see how research is funded, 
who receives funding and how topics for research are chosen. We 
also need to examine which scientific papers are published, who 
are the people who peer review them and what are the effects of 
the research once the paper has been circulated and read. In order 
to understand the scientific community, we might best adopt the 
expression that power stays in the hands of the few. Why else would 
revolutionary cures for cancer have been ignored for seventy years, 
or methods to increase crop production by the use of magnetic and 
sound waves been dismissed as nonsense? 

The last great medically trained man who actually stood 
against the establishment was Culpeper, who lived as long ago 
as 1616-1674. No-one since then has really stood up against the 
medical profession. His story makes fascinating reading. He had 
to challenge the establishment whose members attempted to 
block his knowledge being spread freely to the poor who could not 
afford to pay doctors' fees. He was the Robin Hood of the medical 
establishment, translating Latin text into plain English and showing 



people how they could go into the woods and pick flowers that would 
cure them. This was a free alternative to visiting a doctor, which 
provided the same service but in Latin terminology. In one of his 
many comments, Culpeper wrote: 

"This not being pleasing, and less profitable to me, I consulted 
with my two brothers, DR. REASON and DR. EXPERIENCE, 
and took a voyage to visit my mother NATURE, by whose 
advice, together with the help of Dr. DILIGENCE, I at last 
obtained my desire; and, being warned by MR. HONESTY, a 
stranger in our days, to publish it to the world, I have done it". 

The book in question was called The English Physician, and it was 
brought into life because of what Culpeper thought of as the unfair 
medical establishment. Culpeper had been apprenticed as a doctor 
but, due to his mentor running away with his money, he was not able 
to finish his studies to become a doctor. In the context of medical 
politics of the time, Culpeper decided he would not continue with his 
studies but would set up in opposition to the medical establishment, 
which he felt charged an unfair amount for its services. 

At this time, in order to become a doctor, it was necessary to 
learn Latin. All of the medicines were catalogued using their Latin 
definition rather than their English one. In order to be prescribed 
the correct medicine, it was necessary to obtain its Latin name, 
which was not accessible to lay people at the time. Culpeper felt 
that this was an injustice and took it upon himself to write a book 
containing no Latin, so that it would be possible for the commoner 
to treat himself independently. But, more importantly, Culpeper 
chose to fill his book solely with herbal medicines that were easily 
available locally, so that it was no longer necessary to go to the doctor 
and pay lots of money for treatment. It was now possible to go out 



into the gardens or woods and just pick the herbs that satisfied 
your illness. Culpeper has been called "The first herbalist", which 
for most people in India, Asia, Africa, South America and parts of 
North America would surely be insulting, as they have followed a 
herbally based medicine since many thousands of years prior to the 
publication of Culpeper's book. 

Sadly, Culpeper's ideas seem to have been overshadowed by 
the modern-day drug industry. I am not sure why, but when I 
walk past a Chinese medicine shop, I am very dismissive of the 
notion that anything sold within it could make me better. I have the 
same impulse when I walk past all herbalist shops - I would never 
entertain the idea of going inside and purchasing any of their herbs. 
What has made me think this way? Why do I think that a herb could 
not function as well as a drug created by Western pharmaceutical 
companies? I think it is because I have been brought up to believe 
from the media that Western science is superior, that you should 
always trust your doctor and the drug industry as they are there for 
your best interests. How blinded I am! 

I feel sure that most people who are reading this would not 
dream of using a herbalist. If you asked people in the street who they 
would prefer to be treated by, a herbalist or a doctor, most people 
would say a doctor. But what they don't realise is that the job of a 
doctor is to prescribe drugs, drugs that have mostly originated from 
plants. Two historically very popular drugs - aspirin and quinine 
(an antimalarial agent) - come from the bark of a tree. In fact most 
drug companies today are looking to plants for new discoveries of 
the next generation of medicines that they hope will cure illnesses. 
If drug companies had consulted ancient herbalist books years ago, 
they would have discovered very quickly that a good many answers 
were already there. The problem for the drug companies is how to 
synthesise the chemical in the plant so that it can be reproduced in 

2 3 


tablet form. There is no profit recommending that patients just take 
samples directly from the plant even though they are aware it might 
have curative properties. 

One example that I came across to emphasise this point is a 
plant called Quebra Pedra {Phyllanthus niruri) or "stone blaster". 
This plant has been tested in a scientific experiment and been 
shown to cure gall stones in 95% of patients. You would assume, 
therefore, that doctors would recommend this to patients suffering 
from gall stones, as just taking this herb in tea can get rid of gall 
stones within two weeks. But sadly this is not the case; doctors 
prefer that the patient either takes drugs that are not always effective 
or, more commonly, has an operation to remove the stones. This is 
neither sensible treatment nor clever economics. 

So why are there not herbalists in every high street selling plants 
of all descriptions to combat illnesses? Why is it only recently that 
we have been able to buy herbal supplements in specialist shops? 
There are now more and more Chinese herbalists in most major 
towns and cities, but their products are based on Chinese rather 
than English herbal medicine. The plants and trees available to 
the Chinese are quite different from those available in Europe, but 
why are there not many English herbalist shops, in this their native 

The idea that herbs grown in the wild could make you well was 
a readily accepted part of life not that long ago. For many millions 
of people living throughout the world, this is still the case, but in 
Western medicine the idea that herbs are the solution to illnesses is 
constantly ridiculed. This is ironic since most drugs are chemically 
derived from plants, the very ones that Culpeper was referring back 
in 1652. 

Before writing this book, I never at any time felt that my 
rejection of herbalism and my faith in pharmaceuticals was wrong. 



Why would I question everything that I had been led to believe was 
true? Western medicine, with its double-blind studies and its peer- 
reviewed papers, was obviously the best way for science to progress, 
and only truth and good science would come out of it. Sadly, this is 
not what I have found to be the case. Yes, lots of good science has 
been developed, but so has lots of bad science, with years and years 
having been wasted on repeated studies and wasted opportunities. I 
hate to say it, but millions of people's lives could have been saved if 
scientists had been open to new ideas and had not closed ranks, just 
as they did back in 1652. 

In my research for this book, I have read hundreds upon 
hundreds of papers on science. As I said above, one recurring 
theme seems to be that today's scientific papers rarely give much 
credence to scientific studies that were conducted more than thirty 
years ago. This might be due to access, as it is often hard to get hold 
of a published paper that is out of print or a book that is hard to find. 
It is mostly only papers that have been published in the last twenty 
years that have been put online. If you are a scientist who is looking 
to develop a new area of research and wants to investigate whether 
a similar line of enquiry has been developed before, all of your 
research would take place online unless you had access to a great 
library. This would significantly restrict your level of research, and 
you would not know if the study had previously been conducted. 
I also believe that it is common practice not to look at studies that 
were conducted more than forty years ago in the belief that if it 
was important, it would be common knowledge in textbooks today. 
This is a misguided point, as I have discovered a great deal of lost 
science in books written as long ago as 19 10 that seems to have 
been completely forgotten. 

Another current problem in research is that science has 
become incredibly specialised. Scientists develop research in their 

2 5 


specialist areas, attend conferences within this line of work and 
read magazines that concentrate on their subject, and this then 
becomes more and more a niche area of research. Very rarely can 
you discover a completely different part of science crossing over and 
awakening new ideas in other specialised areas. I have not seen any 
scientific paper on animals that refers to the biology of plants or 
vice versa, which is a tragedy, as you will discover in later chapters. 
Chemists and physicists are not good bedfellows, and neither are 
biologists and biochemists, but they should be. Out of all academics 
in science-based subjects, physicists appear to be more open to 
change than other disciplines. This is not the case in biochemistry 
or medicine, where ideas that are over a hundred years old have only 
just been accepted into Western medical practice. 

An example of this is the discovery that electrical stimulation of 
bones helps them to heal, which was originally discovered in 1812 by 
Dr John Birch of St Thomas' Hospital, London, using electric shocks 
to help heal a non-union of the tibia bone. This discovery was again 
reported in i860 by Dr Arthur Garratt of Boston, who stated in his 
electrotherapy textbook that in the few times he had needed to try it, 
this method never failed. Electrical treatment was not, however, put 
to modern use until the 1980s, and today it is still not completely 
accepted and used as a primary treatment. Two hundred years have 
elapsed since this technique was first discovered, so what else might 
have gone unnoticed? 

One book I have read, The Body Electric by Dr Robert Becker, 
an American orthopaedic surgeon, contains so much useful 
information on the general state of the science that I am going to 
quote verbatim the final paragraph in his book of 347 pages, which 
is packed full of medical data and scientific experiments about 
regeneration and the use of electrical stimulation. It is a book that 
makes you sit up and take notice of some fascinating and ground- 



breaking experiments that Dr Becker conducted into the possibility 
that our bodies could self-generate to repair damaged tissue just 
like the salamander, which can regrow its limbs if they are cut off. 
The science Becker conducted should have paved the way for major 
breakthroughs in the development of science and by now have made 
available the facility to repair damaged heart tissue by the simple 
use of electromagnetic forces. This, however, is his depressing 

"I've taken the trouble to recount my experience in detail for 
two reasons. Obviously, I want to tell people about it because 
it makes me furious. More importantly, I want the general 
public to know that science isn't run the way they have 
read about it in the newspapers and magazines; I want lay 
people to understand that they cannot automatically accept 
scientists' pronouncements at face value, for too often they're 
self-serving and misleading. I want our citizens, non-scientists 
as well as investigators, to work to change the way research 
is administered. The way it's currently funded and evaluated, 
we're learning more and more about less and less, and science 
is becoming our enemy instead of our friend". 

This extract was written in 1985, and as far as I can make out 
very little has changed. In his introduction to the book, Dr Becker 
explains that his primary target is the biochemistry industry, 
which he feels has thwarted the development of alternative ideas. 
If the techniques do not fit the chemical concepts - even if they 
do seem to work - they will be abandoned as pseudo-scientific or 
downright fraudulent. If you want to find a textbook example of 
this, all you have to do is look at the homeopathic industry, which 
appears to work but is based upon chemistry that makes no sense 



to the biochemist. I will show in later chapters that the scientific 
principles behind homeopathic medicine have been completely 
misunderstood, both by traditional and homeopathic scientists. 

A good example of an area of science that needs to be reassessed 
is seasonal affective disorder (SAD), in which sufferers experience 
symptoms of depression at different times of the year. I don't know 
about you, but I am fully aware that I am not as happy on miserable 
cloudy days as I am on glorious sunny ones - a very common and 
obvious reaction. When the sky is darker, and less light is reaching 
us, I would guess that most people feel more depressed. But are we 
in fact clinically depressed or just feeling a bit low, a bit sorry for 
ourselves? And if so, why? What is happening on these cloudy days 
to change our emotions? 

The answer is so obvious that it should be common knowledge, 
but the failings of science to understand this simple phenomenon 
lie at the very heart of the book. What is light if not energy, and what 
does our body need to sustain itself - energy? Traditional science 
suggests that we get our energy only from our food, but this seems 
patently wrong. Does it not seem absurd to assume that our bodies 
would not help themselves to free energy? I would argue that our 
bodies clearly recognise this and have been developed so that we 
can absorb energy from light. Plants do this and, as you will see in 
later chapters, if plants do it, it is likely that animals and humans do 
it too. 

How can we prove this simple idea? I would suggest that we could 
simply go to a doctor and get our energy levels checked. But hold on 
a minute, there is no medical test for our body's energy levels - if 
you went to your doctor, they would just look at you blankly when 
you requested an energy test. Science, it appears, seems to have 
ignored this whole area of research. So until science catches up with 
common sense, SAD research will be left up to psychiatrists, who 



are looking for the answers in completely the wrong place. 

We know a lot about medical biology, such as about the 
genetic code, the nervous system, the blood, muscle movement, 
respiration and other observational aspects of biology. But we 
understand virtually nothing about hunger, thirst, sleep, growth 
and healing. We know nothing about the way our body regulates 
its metabolic activity in cycles with that of the Earth, moon and 
sun. And we understand virtually nothing about consciousness, 
choices, memory, emotions, creativity, learning and personality. 
Mechanistic chemistry will never have answers to these issues, so 
we must develop other sciences that help us to understand them - 
but as long as we remain fixated with biochemistry, we will never 
find answers to all of these issues. 

We are at the moment in a scientific cul-de-sac. Scientists have 
been giving us snippets of knowledge that do not add up to provide 
us with a complete visual picture of how things are and how things 
interact. We are stuck. We need to take a step back and free our 
minds from what we have been told. We need to look at the science 
around us to get a picture that is whole and complete. To liberate 
our instincts, we need to use our own common sense. We need 
to go back to the beginning because we have to unravel what we 
think we already know and then build on that knowledge and see 
life afresh. 

2 9 




Introduction To 


" When you have eliminated the 
impossible, whatever remains, 
however improbable, must be 
the truth". 

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 

3 1 


I am a sceptic, a real sceptic. It takes a lot to persuade me one 
way or another. If I believe something to be true, then unless 
someone can prove otherwise to me, either by experiment 
or through a logical argument, it is very difficult to move me 
away from my entrenched opinion. I think this is probably true for 
most people. In my own case, it took my son's illness to shift me 
away from my stubborn position on complementary forms of health 
treatment, and I think it takes such an awakening in most people 
before they are persuaded there is an alternative option. Why would 
you change the opinion you have held for most of your life unless 
you had a personal experience that caused you to change your mind? 

I have no intention of just telling you my story and hoping you 
will be persuaded by it. My idea is to take you on the journey of 
discovery that I made while spending one and a half years in the 
British Library researching this book. I will introduce you to many 
unsung scientists from the past three hundred years who have all 
provided small pieces of science that, when looked at collectively, 
provide a truly remarkable story - one that I hope, at the very least, 
will open your mind up to the possibility that we have all been led 
down the proverbial garden path and that some of what we have all 
dismissed of as quackery does in fact have scientific validity after all. 

I am full of optimism that you will be impressed by what you 
read simply by the reaction of my father, who read the draft of this 
manuscript. He is a renowned Professor of medicine who has 
written hundreds of different research papers covering issues from 
obesity to bipolar disorder. When I asked his opinion on my first 
two chapters, he was left somewhat speechless as he said he had 
never come across any of my research and therefore could not offer 
an opinion as he had no expertise on which to base one. He wanted 
to read the whole manuscript before he would offer his views. When 
he had read it all, he said that the book made fascinating reading and 

3 2 


he was now no longer a complete sceptic. As far as I was concerned, 
if I could shift the opinion of someone who was firmly entrenched 
in the biochemical theory of life, by even a small amount, then my 
job was done. 

I have written eight different chapters, all of which are 
interrelated. It is not necessary to read them all in sequence: you can 
dip in and out as you wish. All that I would recommend is that you 
first read this chapter and the next, on water, as these will hopefully 
provide you with some incredible new ideas. Then feel free to use 
those ideas in the chapters on the moon and sun, magnets, bees and 
birds, technology and plants as, and how, you want. When you have 
digested all of the information, feel free to join in the discussions on 
my website and put your own opinions forward. 


I believe I have discovered a great missing part of the scientific 
jigsaw that provides a new and very simple unifying theory. The 
piece of the puzzle that seems to have been ignored for so long 
is this simple fact - that everything vibrates. I know this sounds 
ridiculously simple, but let me explain why this point is so important 
and why, when you have read the following chapters on water and 
the moon, you will wonder why you have been deprived of this 
knowledge until now. 

The idea that vibrations play such an important role took me 
a long time to work out; it did not come to me straight away. But 
once I understood this very simple principle, everything else fell 
into place. Simply put, everything vibrates, absolutely everything, 
from the nucleus of an atom to the molecules of our blood, our 
organs, our brain, light, sound, plants, animals, earth, space, the 
universe; they all have one thing in common - they all vibrate. This 
fundamental principle should be the basis of all science, as it is the 



one principle that unifies everything, and if you can understand 
vibrations, everything else becomes clear. Throughout this book, 
vibrations, whether they are in the form of sound, light, electricity, 
magnets or gravity, will be shown to be the number one factor that 
underlies the unexplained phenomena that Western science fails 
to understand. Without an understanding of this science, we have 
been guided down the wrong path, to reach where we are today. 
Most of us have had a very poor scientific teaching in the way that 
life works, for if it were better, we would all look at plants, the solar 
system and our health in a completely different light. 

In isolation, this may not really be such a big deal. I am pretty 
sure that some people are thinking that this is very common 
knowledge and it is well known that everything vibrates. I am sure 
this is true, but what they do not know is how vibrations interact 
with each other - this is the piece of the jigsaw that even makes me 
smile in anticipation while writing. Maybe I get excited every time 
I explain my ideas just because I drink too much coffee. Or maybe 
you will think it is not coffee that I'm drinking too much of when I 
tell you that vibrations are bouncing around us everywhere, but it is 
the unique properties of water that provide the other amazing piece 
of the jigsaw; and one is not interesting without the other. 

Water; what on earth can I be talking about? Since when has 
water been said to be of interest in terms of anything other than 
hydration? - we drink it when we get thirsty. But no, water also has 
a unique property: it has the ability to shape-shift. Water is never 
just one thing. Rather, it is a chameleon, changing its properties in 
different situations. What causes water to change and take on these 
new shapes is, amazingly, all to do with vibrational waves. If we 
combine the idea of vibrations with the unique properties of water, 
we arrive at some outrageous new possibilities. 

As all living organisms contain water, and water can soak up 



and retain different vibrational waves, water will change when it 
is stimulated by a new vibration and maintain that new vibrational 
level. Obvious vibrations, of which science is aware, that change 
water are those caused by sound and light: if you put sunlight 
onto water it heats up, and when you play music next to a puddle 
it moves as a result of the sound vibrations. These are two basic 
ideas that will hopefully give you a simple understanding of how 
different vibrations can affect objects. But what about all the billions 
of other vibrations that are out there? What effect do they have on 
water? Vibrations caused by other living objects that also vibrate. 
How about a tree - what sort of vibration does that give out - or an 
elephant? Because they are made up of living mass, they have to 
vibrate. This is one of those scientific truths that is undeniable. But 
how big are the vibrations they emit, and how do they affect each 
other? This is where it all starts to get a bit scary. 

Imagine this scenario: if our bodies are made up of water, and 
water changes when it comes into contact with different vibrations, 
could this not mean that our bodies will change the way in which 
they behave when in contact with a big new vibration? What big 
vibrations are there which are capable of influencing the water 
within us? The pretty obvious ones are the giant vibrations called 
gravity, coming from the planet we are standing on, and the 
gravitational vibrations of the sun, the moon and the planets. As I 
will reveal in later chapters, science has shown that they affect our 
biology, but until now no-one has understood why. The answer lies 
in the amazing properties of water. 

If it is true that the gravitational waves of the planets affect us, 
what else could be changing the vibrational properties of water, 
and thus affecting our biology? Could a tiny little vibration also 
cause change? And how about this idea: could the person next 
to you be changing the way your body behaves? If they give out a 



different vibration from yours, which by definition they will as the 
combination of cells in their body is not the same as in yours, how 
will the water content in your body react - will it be positive or 
negative? As nonsensical as it might seem, could the idea of love be 
based on a compatible vibrational chemistry between two people? 
Could instant likes and dislikes be based on vibrations as well? Who 
knows? I certainly do not intend to develop these ideas in this book 
as there is no science to back them up, but I have included them to 
show the endless possibilities that vibrations offers us to look afresh 
at the ways in which we interact. Vibrations open up a whole new 
way of looking at life and, as I hope to show in the later chapters, 
they all affect the way in which we go about our daily lives. Some of 
this is positive, but some of it is alarmingly negative. 

Scientists have long known about vibrations and how they can 
induce change in objects. The first significant discovery was made 
in 1787 by Ernst Chladni, whose book, Discoveries in the Theories of 
Sound, should be part of every child's science education, as it could 
encourage interest at a young age in physics and music. Chladni 
was a Hungarian musician who liked to build unusual musical 
instruments. When Chladni heard about scientist Robert Hooke's 
use of powders on a floating table, he took it upon himself to create 
a series of experiments. These turned out to be so significant that 
Napoleon himself personally financed the translation of Chladni's 
book from Hungarian into French. 

So what were these experiments? Very simply, Chladni placed a 
small pile of very fine sand on a small metal plate and then stroked 
his violin bow along its edge to create a vibration. The results of 
this experiment are now referred to as Chladni patterns. Depending 
upon the specific vibrational note played, a pattern would emerge, 
and as he changed the speed and intensity of the stroking, a different 
pattern would be seen. I have included some of the patterns here, 



and you can see that they are really remarkable. The logic of the 
patterns based on just these few different vibrations would imply 
that the range of patterns is almost limitless. 

These patterns are amazing to look at as they are such a varied 
bunch. But what is of more interest than just this fascinating 
concept is that when two or more sound frequencies are combined 
from two sources, the patterns created are again unique. One sound 
produces one pattern, but two sounds produce a completely new 
one. As this knowledge was available over two hundred years ago, 
why have we not considered the possibility that vibrations affect 
the mass of whole living objects, and not just a pile of sand on a 

Chladni diagrams 



vibrating plate? 

In 1967, Swiss scientist Hans Jenny published a book called 
Cymatics. This took Chladni's ideas a stage further, as Jenny showed 
what happened when various materials such as sand, spores, iron 
filings, water and viscous substances were placed on vibrating metal 
plates. Jenny made use of crystal oscillators, and an invention of 
his own called the Tonoscope, to set these plates and membranes 
vibrating. The advantage with using his Tonoscope was that he 
could determine exactly which frequency and amplitude/volume he 
wanted. Jenny found that if he vibrated a plate at a specific frequency 
and amplitude, the shapes and motion patterns characteristic of 
that vibration appeared in the material on the plate. If he changed 

the frequency or amplitude, the pattern changed as well. If the 
frequency increased, so the complexity of the patterns increased, 
the number of elements becoming greater. If, on the other hand, 
Jenny increased the amplitude, the motions became more rapid and 
turbulent and could even create small eruptions. 

Imagine talking into Jenny's Tonoscope and watching the 
patterns of sand dance in front of you on the vibrating plate. The 



Two patterns created by different vibrations 

tone produces a pattern based on not only the sound, but the pitch 
as well. As the voice is raised or lowered, the patterns change, so 
that an exact visual representation of our voices can be made on a 
table full of sand. Since the invention of the Tonoscope, deaf people 
have used it to practise learning to speak even though they cannot 
actually hear the sounds that they are emitting - by comparing the 
shape of the sand pattern with that of a hearing person, they can 
adjust their speech until the correct shape in the sand is obtained. 

Jenny also showed the effect of sound vibration in three 
dimensions by using a very fine powder, Lycopodium. When sound 
is applied, the powder starts to move and form many small mounds 
that all seem to be alive and moving. These mounds move against 

each other and also from within, 
so that the powder is constantly 
moving from the bottom to 
the top. If the amplitude of the 
vibration is greatly increased, the 
powder changes into clouds of 
dust; photos of this look like slow- 
motion close-ups of machine gun 
fire into sand - the powder seems 
literally to be exploding. 



So if it is possible to change the patterns of sand on a vibrating table, 
might the same thing occur with fluids? If it did, this would further 
the idea that water in living organisms could change due to external 
vibrations. It was not hard for me to find evidence of a large number 
of experiments showing that water behaves in exactly the same 
way as sand, in response to external vibrations. Faraday conducted 
experiments back in 1831 which showed that when a large drop of 
water was placed on a vibrating plate, beautiful patterns, which he 
called "crispations", formed on the surface. Since then numerous 
other researchers have also shown that water reacts in this way. 

Jenny also experimented with fluids of various lands. He 
produced wave motions, spirals and wave-like patterns in continuous 

circulation. He also showed 
that it was possible to produce 
vortices in fluids by the use 
of specific frequencies within 
particular fluids - a fact that will 
become more important later 
in the book. This is fascinating 
as vortices are an integral 
part of nature. They crop up 
everywhere, and the fact that 
sound plays a role in creating 
them is developed in great detail in Chapter 2. So it is very clear that 
water is affected by vibrations. 

What proof is there that our bodies do in fact contain vibrations? 
One person who, over 80 years ago, expounded a scientific basis 
for vibrational waves was a man called Georges Lakhovsky, a 
Russian emigre who moved to Paris and subsequently became a 
French citizen. His book, The Secret of Life, is a typical example of 
proven science that was dismissed by contemporary scientists for 

Wave motions caused by vibrations 



reasons I cannot understand. However, I will not for now go into 
his discoveries on cures for cancer, but will instead highlight his 
underlying theory of the effect that gravitational waves have on 
the cellular structure of living organisms. In order to explain this 
further, I have to get a bit technical, although I'll try to make it as 
simple as possible. 

Lakhovsky talked a lot about oscillating circuits. These are 
electrical circuits that produce a vibration if a current of electricity 
is put through them. From such a circuit, energy is given off in 
the form of vibrational waves, and by using certain apparatus, an 
inductance coil and a condenser, the vibration can be raised to any 
vibrational value. This is a really important fact and one that needs 
to be digested thoroughly. An electrical circuit produces vibrational 
waves, and as all living organisms contain an electrical current, all 
living organisms must give off electrical vibrations. 

Take the example of the human cell, which has a cell wall 
enclosing the cell's cytoplasm, vacuoles and other constituents 
lying around its nucleus. This nucleus contains a nucleolus, 
genetic material and twisted filaments. The nuclei act as individual 
electric circuits endowed with the equivalent of condensers and 
an inductance coil (filament), and consequently have the capacity 
to vibrate, the size of the vibration being dependent on the values 

The human cell generates an 
electric current 



of the filaments and condensers. The waves given off are thus 
electromagnetic in origin, by virtue of the nature of the circuits. 

From the constitution of the cells, it can be said that each cell 
is capable of being the centre of vibration. As our bodies contain 
billions of different cells, no two cells are likely to be vibrating at 
exactly the same frequency, partly due to the constant activity taking 
place within the cell, but also because of the specific characteristics 
of different tissues. Every cell of every individual tissue of any 
particular species is characterised by its own vibration. 

The eminent American surgeon Dr George Crile wrote in 
his book, The Phenomena of Life, that electrical energy plays a 
fundamental part in the organisation, growth and function of the 
protoplasm - or cytoplasm as we now call it. Crile has a similar 
interpretation to Lakhovsky for how the cells produce electrical 
currents. There is no disputing the fact that our bodies produce 
electric currents at the cellular level, which means that every cell 
produces its own unique vibration and proves that our bodies do in 
fact emit vibrational waves. 


It only recently dawned on me that everyone is very different 
biologically. When you think about this, it is not very surprising, yet 
I had not thought about this possibility at all. I have always taken 
medicine and assumed that it affected me in exactly the same way 
as it affected the next person, but I have come to the conclusion that 
this is blatantly impossible. 

If you analyse the human body and list, for example, its 
component parts down to the smallest amino acids, sugars and fatty 
acids, there are probably tens of thousands of different mechanisms 
in process all working together to produce one person. All of these 
processes are interlinked: if you change one process, it will have a 



knock-on effect elsewhere, but exactly where and how this effect 
will take place is very difficult to ascertain, as any doctor will tell you. 
A pain in the chest area could have an infinite number of causes, 
which is why doctors often fail to find the cause of a symptom 
without undertaking many different tests whose objective is to rule 
out possibilities until only one is left - and hopefully that will solve 
the problem. Much of the time, however, it is just a question of luck 
whether they find the answer in the first test or the last, or even at 

Our bodies are incredibly sophisticated living organisms, with 
an unbelievable capacity to adapt to anything that might change us. 
In order to see how we adapt, let us imagine that two people have 
been created out of nothing (excuse the semi-biblical reference) and 
have been located on an isolated piece of desert, with no external 
stimuli, as a fully grown man and woman. And let us say that these 
perfect specimens are the base level of perfection - they are the 
perfect humans, for whom absolutely everything within their body 
is in complete equilibrium. What will happen after day one? Firstly, 
in order to live, they will need to have access to water and then food. 
On their island is a natural pool of fresh water, and next to it are 
wild vegetables and fruit. Firstly, the water will be drunk and, as 
this is pure water, it will not affect any of their equilibria, as their 
bodies have been programmed to expect clean water and therefore 
anticipate it and react accordingly. And it's the same for the food: 
the body has been pre-programmed to digest the food and break it 
down into its component parts. 

So the first two people are still in perfect equilibrium. Nothing 
has made them change, and even when the woman gets pregnant 
and produces a child, her body will still be in equilibrium, as it is 
pre-programmed to reproduce. The baby, on the other hand, is a 
new being and will have different balances within its body as it is 



made up of genes that come from both the woman and the man. Its 
DNA will be different, its fingerprints will be different, it will have 
a different natural equilibrium from that of its parents. It will be 
the same perfectly healthy individual, with everything working in 
perfect equilibrium, but on a slightly different vibrational level from 
its parents. 

Later, when the child grows up, he discovers that there are 
adj acent islands to explore, and there he finds new fruits and food that 
his body has never tasted before. The food will, when ingested, set 
off reactions within his body for which it was not pre-programmed. 
However, this is not a problem as his body will immediately adapt 
to the change and set itself on a new equilibrium level that allows it 
to function efficiently. If eaten regularly, this new diet will reset the 
child's body to a new level, but it will still work efficiently. 

The amazing concept to understand is that the new change does 
not happen in days, weeks or even months, but that the body reacts 
immediately. The food that is ingested will have an immediate effect 
on the body, and whatever changes occur will be dependent upon 
how quickly the change is transferred throughout the body. This is 
a really important point, as I am sure most of us assume that any 
change is slow, but that is a bad reflection on how we perceive our 
body. We must always assume that our body is a complex organism 
that constantly reacts to change almost immediately. We react to 
being too hot, too cold, to pain, to emotions, and to a lot of obvious 
things, almost immediately. And we should also assume that we 
react to changes in water, food or electrical stimulation just as 

The child soon discovers a partner and produces another child, 
who grows up on the new island. Again, this child will have a 
different equilibrium and vibrational level from its parents. This 
sequence of change obviously goes on for ever, and produces the 



billions of different people who are alive today, every one having a 
different vibrational level from the others. 

But why is this relevant? Simply because it means that we all 
react to the same external stimuli differently, and that there is not one 
panacea for us all. If one person suffers from eating mushrooms, it 
does not follow that we will all suffer. If one herb cures one person 
of gall stones, it does not mean that it will cure everyone. This is the 
problem that we have today, and it is a major problem as our attitude 
towards our health is based upon finding one drug or treatment that 
will cure everyone. This is a fundamental impossibility. 


Let us go back to the beginning, when the earth had just formed and 
was cooling down sufficiently for life to begin, so that we can answer 
this question. The universe, that dark mass of space, looks empty 
but is in fact full of amino acids floating around, and these amino 
acids are bombarding our planet all of the time. The sun is emitting 
light onto us and giving us heat, the moon is rotating around the 
planet, and we are in a solar system of planets revolving around 
the sun. All of the planets, both near and far, generate gravitational 
waves of energy, whether strong, such as those influenced by the 
moon that move the tides, or weak, as from distant planets such as 
Uranus and Jupiter. 

At the right point in our planet's evolution, the millions of amino 
acids that had arrived on the planet suddenly found an environment 
conducive to life, and single-cell organisms were created. This is one 
theory of the beginning of life itself, but it is not important whether 
it is the correct one - I am just using it as an example of how life 
might have been formed. Over the next few millions of years, the 



organisms developed, but still they all had the same external factors 
that affected their growth: heat, light, atmospheric conditions and 
gravity. As the planet changed and the organisms evolved into plants, 
which were the first developed organic (carbon-based) objects some 
350 million years ago, these plants developed patterns of behaviour 
that would adapt to those four variables. Remember that gravity has 
been around for all of that time and that all of the life forms would 
have been developing with this constant pattern, more so than with 
any consistency of heat and atmospheric conditions. However, It 
has been suggested that the atmosphere was three times richer in 
oxygen millions of years ago, which is a reason dinosaurs were able 
to grow so big. Plants were also enormous, but today, due to the 
different atmospheric conditions, plants are not capable of growing 
as large. 

The point here is that nature adapts very obviously to measurable 
changes in atmospheric conditions, but we seem oblivious 
to the point that nature has also adapted to the unobservable 
changes, those of the gravitational effect of the planets. For some 
unexplained reason, scientists seem to have ignored this effect and 
very rarely refer to it in any scientific studies. I am not sure why it 
has disappeared from our psyche as ancient civilisations such as the 
Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Celts were all clearly believers in the 
planets and the fact that they had an effect on our lives. Somewhere 
in time, our belief system seems to have steered us away from the 
logical, and has tried to tell us that the gravitational influence of the 
planets has no effect on our health or behaviour. The simple logic of 
the adaptability of life should make these scientists sit up and take 
notice, irrespective of the hundreds of studies that have been done 
on plants and animals, to show that they have a direct relationship 
with the cycles of the moon and the planets. 

It seems undeniable, therefore, that if all other living organisms 



are affected either directly or indirectly by external gravitational 
forces, we as humans will also be affected in some way. But the 
question of how we are being affected and to what degree seems 
rarely to have been investigated. 


This is a very contentious point but it needs to be addressed - what 
do you think would happen to a rogue cell that for some unexplained 
reason started to vibrate at an incorrect frequency? Would it have a 
domino effect; would all of the good cells start to vibrate at the rate 
of the bad cell? Would the bad cell be changed back to a good cell 
by simply being next to the good cells? Could an external stimulus 
increase the rate of change of the bad cell or alternatively reset its 
vibration back to that of a good cell? 

Surely there are lots of scientific papers that have studied this 
phenomenon and should be able to tell us exactly what happens 
and how we can fix it. Sadly not. This whole area of science has been 
largely overlooked as it does not follow the normal chemically based 
solution of biological problems. It seems very strange to me that 
there are not a lot of contemporary studies dealing with vibrational 
issues. The two major references here appear to date from the 
1930s, and in both cases they cured numerous patients with cancer 
using their own version of vibrational medicine. So why are we not 
delving further into this area? I have asked several scientists this 
question and they do not have an answer, except that maybe it has 
not been investigated until now because it has been dismissed in 
the past. 

Maybe, however, the reason is that scientists have discovered it 
but without actually recognising its significance. This is the avenue 
I had to take to study the matter further, otherwise it would seem 



ridiculous that one logical idea about the behaviour of organic 
matter could be so easily researched yet have been entirely ignored 
by the scientists who are supposed to be looking after our welfare. 


The most depressing of all the research I have undertaken was 
investigating the hidden science behind one of the greatest 
discoveries in medical development that few of us know about. 
Every day, I think about the millions of people who could have been 
helped and cured from illnesses, ranging from cancer and typhoid 
to influenza and tuberculosis, all needless deaths that resulted from 
science's decision to ignore unique discoveries that have been proven 
in trials to work on humans. Sixteen patients with incurable cancer 
were all completely cured under strict scientific study conditions. 
Yet everything about the study and its amazing results has been 
almost completely destroyed. 

We all have a debt 
to pay the inventor of the 
House Forces Vote o n Wage-Hour Bill cure a man w ith a name 


His parents must have had 
Ca^rBioV-See'r a good sense of humour 
^f*^^^|^^MH|i^ r ^Ri ar t0 give him the first name 

s=i=-~s ^m^eSamMirmmia - Q ng Q f ^ e most significant 

Newspaper headline from 1936 r .1 ■ . .1 . •. 

parts 01 this story is that it 
ties in with everything else I am talking about in this book. The key 
part of Rife's discovery lay in the use of vibrations. Just as J.C. Bose 
(see Chapter 7) measured the different effects of outside stimuli on 





plants using his own invention of the "crescograph", so Rife used 
his own invention to produce the results he was interested in. It 
was this invention that allowed him to develop his unique tools for 
curing almost all illnesses. 

What was so amazing about this machine was that it could 

look at live viruses under the 
microscope without having 
to kill them: modern electron 
microscopes can only look at 
dead viruses. Rife used light as 
a source of magnification and 
was able to see different viruses 
as a colour, each different 
colour representing a different 
vibrational frequency. The 
reasoning was that if you could 
determine the colour of the 
virus, you could destroy it by 
blasting it with a large number 
of light waves that were of that specific frequency. 

Even if I did not know anything about Rife's work, I know, 
having looked into so many scientific papers and studies, that most 
viruses can be cured by the use of vibrations. How do I know this? 
Quite simply because logic tells me that it must be the case, based 
upon all the information that I have gleaned from studies relating 
to plants, animals and lunar cycles. What baffles me most is the 
fact that I know this, yet the so-called major scientists of this world 
seem to have chosen to ignore it or have purposely dismissed it 
for reasons that only they know. I could suggest that money and 
power were the two most likely reasons for this "ignorance", but 
that would be a separate book in itself. 



I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I do not believe that everyone 
is conniving to undermine our knowledge and hide the truth from 
us, but in this instance, I feel ashamed to have to admit that I have 
no other conclusion than to say it has been a collective unconscious 
decision by doctors and scientists throughout the West not to look 
at this major form of medicine as it is not drug-related but product- 
related. Medical care without drugs would create a great big hole 
in the cosy Western world of medicine; hospitals would be empty, 
doctors would be without work, drug companies would spiral out 
of the stock exchange, and corporate profits would be non-existent. 
Maybe these are the very reason why a simple machine has been left 
ignored - it would open up a huge can of worms for doctors. Which 
person having spent ten years training for a job, would want to see 
a machine put them out of business? Not many I would guess, even 
if it meant saving the lives of millions of people. 

Yet in some areas of science, machines that use vibrations are 
very common. The MRI scanner and the ultrasound machine are 
very popular in medicine. How do they work? The MRI scanner uses 
the different vibrational frequencies of chemicals in our bodies, and 
ultrasound uses sound vibration, to reproduce a three-dimensional 
image of our insides. So the physicists know about vibrations 
and have utilised the vibrational signal to develop sophisticated 

Just as I had started to write this book, I finally heard of a trial 
study taking place that was incorporating vibrational medicine. The 
machine in question was being used to cure patients of prostate 
cancer by giving them a treatment of vibrational waves, exactly of 
the type that had been developed seventy years before by Royal Rife. 
However, the machine that was being used was the ultrasound 
machine, a machine that had been around for thirty years before 
someone decided to test it out on cancer. Isn't it a bit strange that it 



took someone so long to get around to this area of science? Maybe it 
will soon be realised that you can cure a wide range of illnesses other 
than prostate cancer using sound waves. In fact, maybe someone 
will eventually look to develop a human vibrational table and with it 
use machines to cure all sorts of vibrational problems. 

I hope we don't have to wait around too long for this. The prostate 
cancer trial is, at the time of writing, currently being conducted, and 
it will take at least 5 years before the technique might be fully used. 
My biggest fear, however, is that those who are conducting it will 
not understand the basic nature of vibrational medicine and will not 
adapt the different ultrasound frequencies to their various different 
patients; instead, they may just adopt one frequency, which might 
be the wrong one for many patients. As each person has a different 
frequency, the cancer might have adapted its frequency from a 
different vibrational position and might be vibrating at a different 
frequency dependent upon the patient. I hope that the study 
acknowledges this fact, otherwise the results will not be as good as 
they should be, or might be dismissed entirely. 


Many people really enjoyed the film Avatar, a recent worldwide 
phenomenon, despite the unsatisfactory storyline, which implied 
that there was some sort of unifying energy that pervaded everything. 
This is similar to the "Gaia theory", which says that everything in 
nature is intricately connected to everything else. At the time of 
watching the film, I had already started my research for this book 
and had already been educated in the idea that this, in fact, could 
be a scientific probability, if looked at it from a less spiritual point 
of view. 

This idea, that there was a unifying energy, I translated as the 
fact that all life vibrates, and therefore all living organisms are 

5 1 


affected by each other. But living organisms are affected not only 
by other living organisms, but also by forces that exist both on this 
planet and not on this planet. Living organisms are affected by the 
gravitational forces of the moon, the sun and the planets, as well 
as the gravitational effect of the earth. So in one respect I felt that 
Avatar was right: the so-called spirit of the trees and animals can 
affect us, and we can feel it directly, but only through the science of 

Then I discovered that plants can react to changes in not only 
normal vibrations, such as light and sound, but also what I call 
non-normal ones, such as intent and emotions. These emotional 
vibrations are somehow produced by our bodies and are transmitted 
so that any other living organisms that are capable of absorbing 
them may do so. Plants are one of the few organisms that can be 
scientifically tested for this, and in some very strange experiments 
described in Chapter 8, you will see how this has in fact been proved. 

So this book did not ever mean to attempt to provide support for 
the theory of Gaia, but it in fact provides lots of evidence to provide 
me with a stronger belief that this is likely to be more right than 
wrong. As a sceptic, it pains me to write this, but, based upon all of 
my research into hidden scientific discoveries, I have to admit that 
I believe a lot more now, than I thought imaginable a year ago, that 
everything is interlinked. 

This is not a book that offers any sort of conspiracy theory. It does 
not attempt to lay the blame for our ignorance on the doorstep of any 
single company or group of organisations. This is a problem that is 
embedded within our psyche. I am the first to acknowledge that I 
have been blinded by science and have had no time for alternative 
ideas. I was certainly not consciously part of any conspiracy theory, 
but I believe this way of thinking has been so indoctrinated into our 
society that it is almost impossible to drag ourselves out of it. 

5 2 


Why would we possibly believe that the moon and the sun 
play any part in our health? This is the stuff of quackery. So is 
the idea that plants are anything more than pretty to look at. Who 
would have guessed that they are as sophisticated as animals and 
can communicate with each other in ways we had never before 

Why would you know that plants are 100% behaviourally the 
same as animals or that trees grow in weeldy cycles related to the 
moon and the planets, that water retains the vibrations of everything 
that it come into contact with, that your computer can increase your 
diabetes level, that cures for cancer have been ignored, and that sex 
on a full moon increases your chances of a successful pregnancy? 

In fact, who would have contemplated the idea that your house 
plant is as emotionally attached to you as your pet dog! I know 
this sounds like nonsense, but the further into this book you read, 
the more you will see how obvious all of this really is, and why, 
when you put down the book at the end, you will have a completely 
different approach to everything around you. 





Introduction To 


" Running water is more 
beneficial, as it is made finer 
and more healthy by the mere 
agitation of the current ". 

Pliny 23 A.D. 



hy have I written over fifty pages explaining the 
properties of water? What on earth, you might 
think, is there to write about? It was only by chance 
that I came across the possibility that water plays a 

fundamental role in the way in which all living organisms interact. 
It took a great deal of work to come up with all of the material within 
this chapter, unearthing many old books with hidden scientific facts, 
reading hundreds of articles and constructing lots of cross-references 
from lengthy bibliographies. Only after all of that research work was 
accomplished did I realise that water was an incredibly significant 
player in biological processes. 

I only started to think about water when I was researching 
the chapter on plants and I discovered that biodynamic farmers, 
while attempting to create excellent manure, did very strange 
things to water. I could not stop myself from wondering why it was 
considered necessary to stir water in a bucket so fast in one direction 
for thirty minutes and then in the other direction for another thirty 
minutes. How can stirring water clockwise and counterclockwise 
be of any use in farming? The practice of stirring made no sense to 
me whatsoever. So, over the coming months, any reference made 
to water in any of the books I read piqued my curiosity, and by 
piecing smaller and smaller parts of the jigsaw together, I finally 
managed to find the answers to why stirring was so important. And 
this was just the starting point. Once I got my teeth into the subject, 
there was no stopping me, and I started to investigate everything I 
could find about water. This led me on a journey of discovery that 
has changed my attitude to science more than any other discovery 
I have made. 

How would you feel if I were to tell you that the moon can affect 
your lymphatic glands because of water, or that the person next to 
you can affect your mood because the water in your body picks up 



their vibrational waves? And how about this for an amazing idea: 
might your houseplants be as emotionally attached to you as your 
pets, so that when you are upset, your plant is too? I don't blame you 
if you think these ideas are complete nonsense as I would expect 
that to be a normal reaction. These ideas are so far removed from 
the way we have all been educated that it is easy to dismiss them as 
the rantings of an insane man. 

What will surprise you, I hope, is that scientists have proved all 
of the above points to be true without necessarily being aware of it. 
Let me give you a perfect example of a scientific experiment that was 
performed in 2010, which looked into the properties of a popular 
sugary drink, that proves this idea. This particular experiment 
investigated the energy benefits of a famous-brand sports drink in 
order to assess the length of time it took for the drink to increase the 
stamina of cyclists. In the first instance, the cyclists were asked to 
swill the drink around in their mouth and then, without swallowing 
any, to spit it out. In the second condition, the cyclists drank it. What 
the scientists discovered, when they analysed the results from brain 
scans and muscular functionality tests, was the body had reacted 
in the same way to both experimental conditions: the mouthwash 
was just as effective as swallowing. This defied all known laws of 
medicine. How was it possible that the body could react without any 
chemical input? The scientists had no option other than to conclude 
the body must have a yet to be discovered set of neural pathways 
linking the taste buds in the mouth to every muscle in our body. 
The scientists had to invent this far-fetched answer based on what 
they already knew, or it would imply there was a gaping hole in their 
knowledge of human biology. 

The results of this study are typical; scientists are only ever 
looking for chemical solutions to provide answers. If the results 
do not fit the hypothesis, it is often the results that are considered 



strange rather than the theories. In the case of the sugar drink, 
there is a very simple solution, one that has nothing to do with a 
biochemical mechanism but has to do with the very remarkable 
properties of water, and the answer lies in vibrations. I attempted 
to highlight the properties of vibrations in the Introduction and 
to explain how important they are, and now I can show that the 
combination of vibrations and the properties of water provide a 
simple and logical answer to the energy drink conundrum. 

I will show the science behind this idea later in the chapter, but 
for now you will just have to accept this fact - that water retains 
the vibration of everything it comes into contact with. If pure 
water in a stream comes into contact with a chemical substance, 
the water will absorb not only the chemical atoms, but also their 
unique chemical vibration. If you then remove the chemical atoms, 
the chemical vibration remains. The pure water looks exactly the 
same under a microscope as it did before, yet it will now have a 
brand new vibrational pattern. In the energy drink experiment, the 
water in the blood that fills the tongue, the throat and the upper 
and lower mouth, recognised not the new chemical atoms but the 
new vibrational pattern of the energy drink, and it was this different 
vibrational pattern that was instantly transferred via the water to the 


Over a ten-year period, three English scientists proved in experiments 
that the vibration in water is both the cause and also the cure of 
illnesses. They set out to show that, with patients who were incredibly 
sensitive to specific chemicals, it was possible to reproduce a similar 
reaction using just water that has been given specific vibrational 
frequencies. One of the patients had such an extreme reaction to a 
fungus mould that she would pass out immediately when the fungus 



touched her skin. But she could be reawakened when touched by a 
much diluted solution of the fungus. 

In an interesting discovery, the researchers found that this 
reaction could be reproduced by giving patients a very weak 
electromagnetic stimulation. Using a frequency generator, the 
patient became unconscious with a vibrational signal of 3 Hz and 
awoke using a vibrational frequency of 10 Hz. Now this is where 
the experiment gets very exciting. In a double-blind study, the 
scientists used water that had been exposed to both these different 
frequencies and discovered that this treated water had exactly the 
same effects as the chemical reaction. The subject receiving water 
that had been treated directly by an electromagnetic vibration both 
passed out and woke up when the treated water contacted her skin. 
These experiments were repeated over several months to prove that 
the water retained the electrical vibration for lengthy periods. This 
experiment proved not only that water could retain the vibrational 
input from an external source, but also that it was the vibration and 
not the chemical stimulus that was of importance. 

The ramifications of this discovery for all of us are totally 
horrendous. I am seriously worried about our long-term health if 
this science is to be believed. It means that if we drink water from 
anywhere other than a natural spring or stream, the likelihood that 
the water has at some point been in contact with pollutants implies 
that we are, in effect, drinking the ghost of that pollutant, whose 
vibration might very well affect our body as badly as the original 
chemical itself. This is scary stuff. In order to change the water 
back, it would be necessary to somehow provide it with the correct 
frequency that would reinstate it to its healthy parameters. 

What is even more frightening to discover is that drinking 
vibrationally changed water affects directly the behaviour of our 
blood. An experiment conducted in 2010 by Beverly Rubik, showed 



that drinking water that had been treated by specific vibrations of 
the order of 7.83 Hz, 14.3 Hz, 20.8 Hz, 27.3 Hz and 33.8 Hz (The 
Schumann resonances) caused our blood to change. When seen 
under a microscope minutes after drinking the zapped water the 
vibrational treatment "decreased the formation of red blood cell 
rouleau and aggregates, diminished protein linkage of the cells, and 
produced less clotting than blood from subjects drinking control 
water." This is great news for patients who need their blood thinned 
without the use of medication, but horrific news for the rest of us who 
use mobile phones which broadcast using frequencies very similar 
to those used in Ms Rubik's experiment 2 Hz, 8.34 Hz and 30-40 
Hz. It is also bad news for those people who drink polluted water 
that has been in contact with chemicals that emit these frequencies. 


How can water behave like this and yet we know nothing about it? 
One scientist who has been banging his head against a brick wall trying 
to get the message out to the masses is a man called Vladimir Voeikov, 
a scientist at the Moscow State University. He has conducted a range 
of experiments into the properties of water and has found that it is able 
to absorb and reproduce vibrations as part of the biochemical process. 
What is even more interesting is that his experiments showed that this 
effect of water was not limited to human biology but instead covered all 
biology - every living organism that has a water content has the ability 
to react to different vibrational signals and affect its biological processes 
at the same time. Voeikov compares water to an antenna that collects 
every vibrational signal. These vibrational signals could be anything 
that gives off a vibration and, as everything gives off vibrations, from 
the nucleus of an atom to the largest planet, Voeikov's statement is very, 
very important. 

But what does this mean for science? This basic principle has huge 



ramifications since everything vibrates and because of the nature of 
vibrations - one vibration can have an impact on another through 
water. If you think this is a very strange concept, how about the idea 
that if you stand in front of a music speaker, it is the water rather than 
anything chemical in your body that recognises the vibrational sound 
wave, and it is the water that instantly transfers the vibration around 
your body. If you then stretch your imagination to the limit, you can 
also say that as water can pick up on every vibrational wavelength, it is 
possible it can pick up on emotional vibrational signals that are being 
given off by friends, on signals emitted by the gravitational forces of 
the planets and, yes, I hate to say it, on the vibrational signals of trees 
and plants. It pains me to have to admit it, but there is science in the 
concept of tree-hugging after all. 

Images from Hans Jenny, Cymatics, 2001 

If you need visual proof for yourself that water reacts to different 
vibrations, all you have do to is type "Water Sound Images" into an 
internet search engine and see Alexander Lauterwasser's amazing 
slow-motion film of a close-up of a water droplet. In this film, 
Lauterwasser did nothing more than play music to the water. The 
astonishing footage shows beyond doubt that water is directly 
affected by vibrational waves. The film literally shows the water 
dancing to the music - as the notes change so does the pattern of 
the water droplet. As our body is made up of 73% water, it is pretty 
scary to think that our blood could be literally dancing to music in 
our blood vessels. This might even explain why we like some music 



over others; it is the vibrational pattern of the music and our body's 
reaction to it that is the most important factor. 

If this is just too much too fast, I completely understand, but 
as you will read in the following chapters, there is a good deal of 
science that supports these outrageous theories. It just took a lot of 
work to join up all of the dots and finally work out the great missing 
pieces of the scientific jigsaw that offers up a completely new way of 
looking at the way in which living organisms work, both individually 
and collectively. 

I hope that, by the end of this book, you will never look at water, 
the moon, your body, plants and trees in the same way again. 


If we look at the basic properties of water, what do we know? Well, 
water makes up about 70% of our mass, so in essence we are mostly 
a water-based organism. And that is pretty much all most of us know 
- that we are mostly made up of water. Water makes up 99% of the 
total number of molecules within our body, while the part that is of 
interest to scientists - nucleic acids, proteins, hormones, vitamins 
and so on - makes up only 1% of our molecular make-up, yet takes 
up almost 100% of our research. It seems to me that if water were 
not important, we could reduce our bodily content by up to 50% and 
nothing much would result. Far from it, however, as if our water 
content is reduced by only 1-2% as a result of dehydration, we suffer 
severe symptoms, as anyone who has experienced dehydration 
knows only too well. So water cannot be the passive player in our 
biological make-up but must instead play a significant role, as any 
small change produces significant side effects. We can all live for a 
long time without food but only a few days without water. 

Let me put this into some scientific perspective. Water is 
unique, and some scientists have even described it as "abnormal". 



These are just some of its unusual properties: 

• It is the only natural thing that exists in three forms: water, ice 
and gas. 

• Its density rises the hotter it gets. 

• Its surface tension is abnormally high. 

• Its specific heat is abnormally high. 

• The latent heat of ice fusion is, except for ammonia, the largest 

• Water changes in structure as it rises in temperature. 

Are the properties of water unique for a reason? Have living 
organisms chosen water to be fundamental to their growth for 
a specific purpose? Does water behave in a way that we need for 
every organism? There are no developed living organisms that do 
not require water to sustain life. So water is a very, very important 
factor, and yet we know virtually nothing about it. There is very little 
research that helps to explain what water can actually do other than 
the obvious fact that it comprises two hydrogen and one oxygen 
atom. Imagine, though, that water had a set of remarkable properties 
that have yet to be explained, ones that help to provide answers to 
most of the unknown questions about how our bodies work. 

As I mentioned, my interest in water was first stimulated by my 
research into biodynamic farming. This is a new and alternative 
method being increasingly used in wine growing, as it is possible to 
see the measurable results in the quality of the wine being produced. 
More and more leading wine growers now have part of their crop 
produced by this method. What exactly is biodynamic farming? In 
essence, it is a way of creating a large number of bacteria in the 
soil to nourish it, and utilising the lunar cycle and the cycle of 
the planets as a calendar for timing the sowing of the seeds, the 
pruning of the plants and the harvesting of the grapes. Biodynamic 



farming was "created" by 
Rudolf Steiner, who came 
up with a unique sequence 
of steps that were required 
in order to produce better 
crops without the use of 
fertiliser. Having spoken 
to journalists who write 
about the wine trade, no- 
one knows why it works, 
just that it does. As far as 
they are concerned, it does 
not matter why as long as 
it produces a better quality 
of wine. 

So what has this 
got to do with a chapter on 
water? Well, one part of 
the process in the sequence involves water. In order to make sure 
that the bacteria multiply in the soil, it is necessary to create good- 
quality manure, and this is achieved by burying cow horns with cow 
manure in the ground and then, after several months, taking this 
compost and diluting it in water so that it can be sprayed onto the 
crops. In order to dilute the manure, the water used has to be spun 
in a very specific way. 

Firstly, the water has to be spun in one direction for half an hour 
fast enough to create a vortex (like water going down a plug hole), 
and then for another half an hour the water is spun in the other 
direction, creating another vortex or whirlpool. Without this step in 
the process, the biodynamic farming method will not work in the 
most productive way. Why not? What does water do when it is in a 

Water in a vortex 

6 4 


vortex, and how can this spinning of water make any difference to 
anything? This was a major question for me as I could scientifically 
explain everything else about biodynamic farming except this. 
Some of the answers were, however, discovered by a man called 
Viktor Schauberger. 


Viktor Schauberger is a fascinating character, an individual who 
made observations in his native woods around Austria. He was not 
well schooled but derived his education from nature itself. This did 
not, however, stop him becoming a rich man from his revolutionary 
new method of transporting chopped trees down from the 
mountains using water chutes. In the 1930s, Schauberger's ideas 
met with considerable scientific opposition, probably because his 
practical discoveries completely contradicted the known laws of 
physics as well as common sense. 

At the time, it was necessary to use pack animals or barges in 
order to transport trees downhill, as heavy wood did not float and 
could not be sent floating downstream by itself. What Schauberger 
observed in nature was that the density of the water was the most 
important factor, and this density changed when the temperature 
rose or fell. Archimedes' Law suggests that as the density of wood 
is heavier than that of water, wood will not float, but this does not 
take into account the fact that the density of water is lighter during 
the day and heavier during the cold nights. Schauberger's discovery 
proved that, in order to transport logs down a chute, you just had to 
do the operation at night when the water temperature was colder. 
This simple discovery made him a millionaire, and his log chutes 
were used in many different countries for the next thirty years. I am 
including this case as it shows that although it is not a scientifically 
proven theory, it is a practical idea that bypassed contemporary 



scientific thought and is to my mind eligible for inclusion in this 
chapter. It is what I call practical science. 

One of Schauberger's many other observations in nature was the 
fact that a trout can stay motionless within a fast-moving stream and 
will, when startled, swim away from danger by swimming upstream 
against the oncoming flow instead of swimming downstream with 
the motion of the water. Would not the fastest escape be to swim 
with the flow, downstream? So why would the trout act this way? 
In order to test his theory that it was the temperature of the water 
that was the important factor in the trout's behaviour, Schauberger 
ordered a group of men to pour one hundred and fifty gallons of 
heated water into the river one hundred metres upstream of the 
trout and watch what happened. The temperature change in the 
river would have been minimal, but the trout's change in behaviour 
was significant. The trout was unable to hold its steady position; 
it thrashed around for a time before giving up and disappearing 
downstream, presumably to an area where the temperature was 
normal. Only later did the trout reappear. 

Schauberger was the first person who applied for patents to 
make artificially pure water from dirty water. He then built an 
apparatus which strove to refine water back to its purest state. He 
took sterilised water from the River Danube, added small amounts 
of metals, minerals and carbon dioxide and then let the mixture 
undergo a "cycloid spiral motion" in darkness while allowing its 
temperature to fall towards water's biological zero, which is 4°C. 
The process was Schauberger's attempt to copy nature's cycle. What 
is the most noticeable point is his use of the cycloid spiral motion 
or, to put it another way, the spinning or vortex pattern, like the 
water going down the plug hole or the spinning used in biodynamic 
farming. Where did he get this observation from? It was clearly one 
of the fundamental parts of his apparatus, one that he observed in 



nature: "in the river the water is thrown hither and thither, spins, 
reels on itself, as the rope in the hands of the ropemaker. It forms 
whirlpools, eddies, spiral-forming current, where the water rotates 
on its own axis and condenses." 

Is it a coincidence that both Schauberger and Rudolph Steiner, 
the "inventor of biodynamic farming", have the spinning of water 
as part of their innovations? Both of them are Austrian, and both 
were expressing their concerns over the damage we were doing 
to nature. It is a guess that Schauberger would have heard about 

Flow dynamics of the double vortex pipe 

Steiner, who died in 1925, when Schauberger would have been 
forty years old; in fact, they might even have met each other. I 
believe this is fairly likely because Schauberger refers to the same 
ideas as Steiner proposes in his biodynamic farming methods but 
refers to them simply as "close-to-nature farming". Schauberger's 
description of his traditional farming techniques is very similar to 
Steiner's biodynamic farming method. 

At the end of his career, Schauberger, aged 67, was invited by 
Minister Kumpf to work in the technical college in Stuttgart alongside 
Professor Franz Popel, the resident expert of water resources at the 
college. It is alleged that the purpose of the exercise was to show 



The small outer vortices act as ball bearings for the large inner vortex 

that Schauberger's claims were unjustified; he was still treated 
with scepticism by the traditionalists, of whom Popel was a leading 
member. At first, Professor Popel refused to work with Schauberger 
as his claims went against the known laws of mechanics, but the 
Minister insisted he carried out the experiments, allegedly because 
he wanted to finally discredit all of Schauberger's ideas. 

The first experiments were based on the characteristics of 
water motion. After the experiments had been conducted, Popel 
analysed the results, whereupon his opinion completely changed. 
He discovered that a straight glass pipe, which had smooth walls, 
actually caused greater resistance than a spiral pipe that Schauberger 
had invented, a pipe with fins. This went against all of Popel's 
previous ideas on the flow of water. The addition of the fins created 
two different patterns within the pipe, the first a set of small spiral 
motions towards the outside of the pipe, and the second a larger 
spiral motion in the middle. The small spirals acted as a lubricant 
for the larger one, similar to the action of ball-bearings. 

Schauberger suggested that if we are looking to adapt any ideas 
that will enable us to improve the health of water, one simple change 
we can easily apply is to make the water spin in a vortex within a pipe 
that is channelling it. If you can imagine a river in full flow after a 
few days of torrential rain, you know that water does not move in a 
nice smooth flowing pattern; it rises, falls, crashes, spins and spirals 



all the way down the river. If you imagine water in a pipe, you might 
think, as most scientists do, that this is the most efficient method 
of transporting water, but Schauberger showed that this is not the 
case. In order to transport water efficiently and healthily, you need 
to move the water around so that the water spins in the middle of 
the pipe, which reduces the level of friction at the outer walls. His 
solution was a series of vanes placed on the walls of the pipe that 
simply created a pattern of double vortices so that the water was 
spinning in two separate paths, just like the double-helix pattern of 
our DNA. 

I hope that Schauberger over time receives many more plaudits 
then he has until now. I have only touched upon some of his ideas. 
One that I mention here briefly is his invention for unlimited energy 
from water. I will admit I do not understand most of the physics 
behind his ideas, which is why I do 
not devote more to this topic, but he 
put forward experiments in which 
he developed the idea that water 
has different energies and that this 
is a fundamental principle that has 
simply been ignored, but one that 
explains so much about the laws of 
nature. It is this energy change that 
allows water to move so freely. 

As a consequence of 
Schauberger's idea and the fact 
that my radiators at home were not 
working and required the services 
of a plumber, I could not help think 
that something in our understanding 
of water was missing. In my flat I B iood flow around the body 

6 9 


have ten radiators, three of which were not getting hot. It transpired 
that some of the pipework was blocked by sediment, which stopped 
the water from flowing smoothly through the system. The other 
seven radiators, however, worked fine. In order to fix the problem, 
a special stronger pump was required to flush out the system and 
clear away the old sediment. It seemed to me that this was a very 
similar problem to the way in which our body works; it is simple 

The heart pumps blood around the body, and we are taught that 
it is the pressure created by the heart that pushes the blood freely 
around the veins and arteries. This is not an idea that sits comfortably 
with me, having had so many plumbing problems and new boilers 
over the years. The body has miles and miles of veins and arteries, 
and I am not sure whether the heart is a large enough pump to be 
able to move so much blood around by its simple movements of 
contraction and expansion. If I were to put water in a balloon and 
squeeze it, how far would I be able to push it when it split off into 
millions of different channels? If the heart is pushing the blood, for 
example, to the outer reaches of the body, how can the pressure be 
large enough in all of the little veins without something oiling the 
blood's path? 

Blood is very viscous. It is much thicker than water and flows 
more slowly than other fluids, so something must be helping it move 
so freely around the body. I believe that there must be something 
else happening, which Schauberger discusses in his books related 
to positively and negatively charged ions. He argues that there must 
be a relationship to these electrical charges to assist the movement 
of blood around the body and maintain the body's blood pressure. 
I wish that scientists would go back to the drawing board, reassess 
the function of the heart and set up an experiment to see how far 
blood actually moves when there is no electrical impulse in the body 



to stimulate movement. I don't think that it would move very far at 
all. Therefore the electrical charge created by the water in relation 
to the electrical charge of the blood vessels and walls of the arteries 
and veins is, I believe, hugely significant and requires much more 
analysis by experts in physics and biology. All they have to do is 
open one of the many books written by Schauberger in the 1930s to 
kick-start this fascinating area of research. It could result in many 
heart and blood problems being cured simply by utilising electrical 


If there is an advantage to water creating a vortex, it seems likely 
we would find this everywhere in nature. If nature knows about 
vortices helping to restore the vibrational equilibrium, where can 
we find them? Obviously, this can be seen in running water, where 
little eddy currents appear in every river and stream. But where else 
can it be found? It was not hard to discover that these shapes are 
found everywhere; everywhere, that is, except the one place that 
you would expect to 
find them - the blood. 
Why would this be? 
Why have doctors for 
the last one hundred 
years taught the fact 
that blood flows in 
a unique way. Why 
would nature place 
vortices in every part of 
nature but not the one 
most obvious place? 
It made little sense to 



Laminar flow 

Cross section of 
laminar flow 

Blood flow 

Blood vessel 

Laminar blood flow 

me. It took me a long time to realise that one of the most accepted 
parts of medical training seems to be completely wrong: blood does 
not flow in a unique way; blood is like everything else in nature - it 
flows in a vortex. 


In almost every medical school around the world, doctors are being 
told that blood flows in concentric circles throughout the body, a 
movement referred to as laminar flow. The diagram above shows 
the classical interpretation of this flow. 

So let me ask you this question: try verbally to describe this type 
of flow without the use of the word "laminar". The diagram above 
sets the scene, showing blood flowing at different speeds within the 
arteries and veins, fastest in the middle and slowest at the outside. 
On the right of the diagram above is a cross-section of this flow, and 
it suggests that the blood flows in concentric circles. The reason I 
first questioned this principle was when I attempted to describe it 
and I found myself asking how I could describe flow in concentric 
circles as there were no words in my vocabulary that allowed me 
to do it. So I looked hard at the diagram and suddenly alarm bells 
started to ring very, very loudly. I could not believe what I was seeing: 

7 2 


Spiral laminar flow 

Cross section of 
Spiral laminar flow 

Blood vessel 

Spiral blood flow 

how was it possible for blood to travel in concentric circles? Where 
in nature is there laminar flow in concentric circles? 

If you add a vortex to the laminar flow diagram then blood flow 
makes a lot more sense. It seems blatantly obvious that the blood 
is moving in a spiral, and if this is true, it has major consequences 
for the medical establishment. If they have always thought that 
blood flows in concentric circles, the following idea must be 
completely incorrect: 

The orderly movement of adjacent layers of blood flow through 
a vessel helps to reduce energy losses in the f owing blood by 
minimizing viscous interactions between the adjacent layers of 
blood and the wall of the blood vessel. 

In fact, almost everything that is written about the blood flow will 
then be wrong. 

What does this mean for science? If blood is flowing in a natural 
vortex and comes across an intrusion, how will the blood behave, 
and what consequences does this have for our health? If you look 
at the following diagram of blocked arteries, it is not too hard to 
imagine that the blood will not be flowing smoothly, and the 
natural vortex will be affected. If the blood is not following its path 



in a vortex, what are the consequences of this? What relationship 
is there between the blood and the walls of the artery - does the 
vortex create pressure on the artery walls? Does the vortex give the 
artery walls energy? Does the blood lose its energy at the point of 
interference, and does the artery wall get weaker and weaker the 
longer the intrusion stays in place? Will it be like a piece of rust on 
metal that slowly gets bigger and bigger as it eats away at the artery 
lining because it is not being healthily nourished by the vortex? I do 
not have any answers to these questions, but I am very confident 
that there should be a whole new area of research into the incredibly 
important issues that this topic raises for our long-term health. 


As I was so astonished that blood could be moving in a vortex, I felt 
I had to check thoroughly that this idea had been overlooked. It 
came as a surprise to me that the concept that blood could flow in a 
vortex was suggested as long ago as 19 91, but, it was proposed, this 
flow was limited to the heart area. Later papers went even further, 
making suggestions that blood flows in a vortex in other areas of the 
body. One highlighted the importance of blood flow and suggested 
that "the absence of spiral flow has been associated with carotid 

Healthy and blocked arteries 



arterial disease." If they know this, why are the old ideas of laminar 
flow still very much in place? 

I could find only a few research papers that discussed this spiral 
flow, and one of these made for depressing reading. A Scottish 
surgeon had discovered that the spiral flow was significant in 
the success rate of operations replacing damaged artery walls in 
the knee area. If the surgeon operated on a patient and replaced 
the arterial wall with a smoothly shaped graft, one third of the 
operations resulted in failure, often leading to amputation. With 
this surgeon's discovery of a new design for the graft that spun 
the blood, he discovered that the success rate was 90%, with no 
ensuing amputations. He concluded that spiral flow "confers 
advantages over other flow patterns in reducing near wall kinetic 
energy, turbulence and pressure differences in complex branching 
systems", three very important factors medically. 

In 2004, a group of Japanese scientists discovered that blood 
not only moves in a spiral, but moves in both clockwise and anti- 
clockwise spirals in different parts of the body. Their findings 
reported that "clockwise spiral blood flow exists in the human 
abdominal aorta from birth" (and why wouldn't it?), and second, 
that anti-clockwise spiral blood flow and the severity of an injury 
are related. Clockwise blood flow, on the other hand, reduces the 
likelihood of injury. Researchers in England in 2003 similarly 
described a link between spiral flow in the heart and health: 
"Healthy patients are known to have high prevalence of spiral flow 
while patients with vascular disease commonly lack spiral flow". 
Furthermore, "the loss of spiral blood flow has been associated with 
the presence, severity and progression of the build-up of a waxy 
plaque on the inside of blood vessels". 

Fascinating stuff; I just wish more people had read these studies. 
Not only is it agreed that blood flows in a spiral, but it does so in two 



directions, each having a relationship with a person's susceptibility 
to illness. If this information had been recognised more widely 
and students of medicine had been taught these basic facts in their 
textbooks, I am sure we would be further down the route of knowing 
more about how to cure illnesses that are related to damaged blood 
flow, such as many heart-related illnesses and circulatory problems. 


A Japanese researcher who has looked into the properties of water 
is Masaru Emoto, who wrote a fascinating book called The Miracle 
of Water. Emoto discovered, by taking photographs of crystals of 
frozen water exposed to certain external elements, that the water 
behaved differently and uniquely shaped crystals were formed. 
His early experiments looked simply at water that had come from 
different sources, such as tap water, chlorinated water and spring 
water. The difference in the crystals was so dramatic that it forced 
him to carry on with his work to discover what else might affect the 
water that we drink. He found that water from a spring produced 
beautiful regular hexagons, while water from the lower course of 
a river or from a dam hardly achieved a complete crystal. One of 
his most shocking images came from chlorinated drinking water as 
this produced very badly deformed-looking crystals, indicating that 
all was not well in the water that we drink daily. 

I have not mentioned all of the external stimuli that Emoto 
used to produce different shapes of crystal, as I did not want to 
put you off straight away and cause you to dismiss this concept as 
hocus pocus. In essence, what Emoto did was expose the water to 
different frequencies of sound and then observe the patterns that 
the water created from those frequencies. In Chapter i, I showed 
that, as long ago as the 18th century, sand exposed to sound waves 

7 6 


on a vibrating table was shown 
to produce a myriad of different 
shapes depending upon the 
sound frequency to which the 
sand was exposed. It was proved 
that objects are directly affected 
by the vibrational element of 
sound waves. So is it too much 
of a leap to replace the words 
a water crystal "sand" with the word "water" and 

come to the same conclusion? If you play different frequencies of 
sound wave to water, this will produce different shapes that you can 
measure when you freeze the water that has been exposed to these 
frequencies. This makes perfect logical sense to me. In fact, as I 
am sure I have mentioned countless times already, I believe that 
everything reacts to vibrational waves. 

So what does Emoto show in his book, The Miracle of Water} 
His photographs clearly show that water is changed by vibrational 
stimulation - even the minutest change in the vibration changes 
the shape of the crystal. The problem, however, with this excellent 
research is that it is undermined by his other conclusions in his 
book, which have opened him up to ridicule. Let me explain how 
Emoto creates the different vibrational patterns. In one series of 
tests, he speaks a single word onto water that is contained in a Petri 
glass. This one word that is spoken obviously has a vibrational wave 
frequency as it is in essence a sound wave, and sound waves are 
easily measurable. So the individual word creates a unique pattern, 
and therefore I understand that this one sound wave could then 
create a unique frozen crystal. 

However, in later tests, Emoto uses not only individual words, 
but expressions as well to create hundreds of differently shaped 



crystals. In his experiments, he uses words such as love, anger, 
giving birth, happy home, mother's milk, nuclear power plant, 
cellular phone, tenderness, you inspire me ... I think you can begin 
to get the message from the types of word that he was speaking into 
the water. Many of these clearly have an emotional content, and I 
think that the biggest problem I have with his conclusions is that 

he states that the word itself, such as "love" or "anger", contains an 
emotional character that the water picks up on. So if you say the 
word "love", the water produces a beautifully shaped crystal, but if 
you happen to say any negatively emotive work such as "anger", or 
an expression such as "I can't do it", the crystal produces broken 
and unformed crystals. 

The problem is not whether Emoto's general principle of the 
effect of vibrations is true; the problem is that if it were true, this 



really would be the missing piece that would help to explain every 
part of my theory. It would help to explain why plants can pick up 
on emotions, how acupuncture works by transferring vibrations 
around the body, how being positive helps you recover more quicldy 
from illnesses; in fact, it provides answers to a myriad of previously 
unexplained problems. If water is the conduit for the vibrations in 

V ^jg 

The photo on the left is of an ice crystal frozen from severly polluted 
water. The photo on the right is the same water refrozen after 
having been blessed by Dr. Emoto. One can plainly see that we do 
have the ability to not only heal ourselves, but our Earth as well. 

plants, animals and humans, this is a major step in our development of 
understanding how everything works. It is a major piece of the jigsaw. 

We cannot use Emoto's images as any sort of proof as there 
is not a constant to work from, but we can use his images of 
crystals from water that has been exposed to mobile phone signals, 
television signals and microwaves, or water that has been left next 
to a computer for several hours. These images use specific and 
constant vibrations that can be found everywhere, and it is these that 
produce so many of the negatively formed crystal images in Emoto's 



These pages of photographs provide image after image of 
deformed crystals. All of the crystals have parts missing, or crystals are 
developing in the wrong areas, and in some instances no crystals are 
actually formed at all. The water exposed to the electromagnetic field 
of a mobile phone produced no crystals at all on freezing; neither did 
the water heated in a microwave oven. Why would this be? When water 
freezes, its atoms connect and form the nucleus of a crystal, and the 
crystal becomes stable once it has the structure of a hexagon. Once 
it has achieved this hexagon, the crystal starts to grow and reaches 
its natural potential. However, if for any reason something stops the 
atoms forming a hexagon in the first place, the crystal will not develop. 
Or if the atoms are affected in a way that the crystals only partially form, 
you have to ask yourself: what is affecting the water atoms to make 
this happen? 

The results cannot be coincidental. When you go through the 
hundreds of pages in Emoto's book and look for pictures in which 
the crystals have been deformed, these always result from negative 
words, expressions that have been deemed to be negative, or harmful 
vibrational waves such as microwaves. It should come as no surprise 
that the Petri dish exposed to mobile phone frequencies or a microwave 
oven produced no crystals, as these two devices have been suggested to 
have a negative effect on our bodies' health. 

In his early experiments with water, one of Emoto's assistants 
asked him to try playing music to the water and then assessing the 
changes in the crystals. What was most surprising was that the crystals 
produced in this way were some of the most beautiful crystals that 
he photographed. Beauty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder, but 
scientifically one would say that the crystals were all perfect without 
any deformities. Emoto's methodology was very simple. He placed 
a small bottle of distilled water between two loudspeakers and then 
played a variety of different types of music. The water was then frozen, 



and photographs were taken of the resulting crystals. He theorized 
that the water would absorb the vibration of the sound and retain this 
information. Now, this is a really, really, important point, and one I 
would like you to remember. If you listen to music, it is not as simple 
as the music entering your ear and you responding with enjoyment 
for that moment. The music actually changes your physical biological 
make-up by creating different crystals within the water content of your 
body. At least, that is what Emoto would have us believe. 

I personally dislike the conclusions at which Emoto arrives as they 
provide the scientists and journalists with ammunition for ridiculing 
his ideas. But I cannot get away from the photos; these, and not Emoto's 
conclusions, make up the evidence that is of interest to me. They are 
evidence that vibrational waves affect the consistency of water, which I 
feel is a monumental piece of evidence, a major discovery, and one that 
should be analysed for years to come. This one piece of evidence opens 
up a gamut of possibilities for more scientific research. 

And other scientists agree with Emoto. In fact, many scientists 
believe that water is not just the sum of its chemical parts. In an article 
from 2008 by Elia and colleagues, remarkable results were obtained. 
Elia discovered that when water was excited by an externally supplied 
energy, the electrons within the water produced vortices that aligned 
them to the ambient magnetic field, including that of the Earth. Because 
these vortices are cold, they cannot decay, so the vortices can last many 
months or years. In a further study on water, Elia concluded that "water 
without doubt has an extended and ordered dynamic involving the 
whole body of the liquid. It is much more complex than the normal 
idea of a banal and chaotic cluster of molecular balls." 

Dr Wolfgang Ludwig took the research one stage further by 
measuring the frequency of water itself. He has conducted many 
experiments showing that water has more than one frequency. How 
is that possible if scientists say that water has only one "composition"? 



- simply because its structure varies infinitely. Through his work at the 
University of Freiburg, Ludwig set out to assess the "dielectric constants" 
(DCs) of water, which in layman's terms means the measurement of 
a material's ability to store an electric charge. What he found was that 
for all liquids apart from water, this ability, the DC, was constant, but 
in water it varied depending upon the external conditions the water 
had been subjected to. For example, the DC of water changed if it had 
been boiled and cooled very quicldy compared with water that had been 
boiled and slowly left to cool. 

Another incredibly important study that Ludwig conducted involved 
the vibrational frequency of one of his samples of water. This sample 
had been distilled twice before it had been tested, so he thought that it 
would be very clean and therefore have a normal frequency. It turned 
out, though, that the frequency of the water matched that of water that 
had become heavily polluted, at 1.8 Hz. But how can clean-looking 
water have the same vibration as dirty, polluted water? The answer can 
only be provided by the idea that the water has absorbed frequency of 
the dirty state and maintained it over time, irrespective of how many 
times it has since been chemically filtered. If this is the case, it provides 
even more evidence that water has unique properties and confirms the 
possibility that vibrations play a significant role in our biology. 


I have sympathy with the biochemist's apprehension about 
homeopathy. How is it possible that a solution that contains no 
chemical atoms of any consequence causes a chemical reaction? It 
makes no logical sense whatsoever. Most people, including myself 
up until a year ago, would agree. But this is just like one of those 
intellectual games that people play, where the answer to the problem 
is based on very unusual and illogical clues because all the facts are 
not evident. As soon as all the facts are known, it is easy to discern 



the reasons why some homeopathic medicine works. 

Let me give you one example of one of these intellectual games: 
by utilising a completely different area of science, a mathematical 
impossibility can be overcome. Imagine you are in a building with 
only two rooms in it. In one of the rooms, there is no furniture, just 
a chandelier hanging from the middle of the ceiling, and in the far 
corner of the room is a doorway. This door leads to another room 
that is also empty of furniture, but on one of the walls is a box that 
houses three switches. You are told that one of those switches turns 
the chandelier in the next room off and on and it is your job to 
discover which switch it is. The problem of course is that the door 
between the two rooms is closed and you only have two attempts at 
turning the switches to be able to prove which switch works. 

Without going into too much detail, the only solution to the 
problem that proves, every time, which switch works lies with 
utilising a unique approach, one that has nothing at all to do with 
mathematics. It is like trying to solve a biochemical problem using 
physics. The answer is actually very simple. If you turn on one of 
the switches in the room and the door is closed, you cannot see 
whether or not the switch has worked. But if you leave the switch 
on for a minute, return it to its previous position and then open 
the door and walk into the room with the chandelier and feel it to 
see if it has become warm, you will immediately know if that was 
the correct switch. The answer is obvious when you are told it but 
impossible if you don't look for alternative ideas. 

This is the same with homeopathy: you have to learn a different 
area of science to understand how it works. The impossibility of 
homeopathy is understandable if you think that everything revolves 
around biochemistry, but there are other factors of science that 
have to be taken into account, of which a fundamental one is 
vibrations. If you understand vibrations, homeopathy is very 



simple and works scientifically. 

According to Emoto's crystal theory, water has infinite 
possibilities in terms of the patterns of crystals that it makes. 
Perfectly clean water without any pollutants will, it is suggested, 
produce beautiful crystals all shown to be of perfect shape. If we 
add a chemical to the water, this addition will cause all of the 
water's crystals to take on a new shape. If you then take out the 
chemical content, the crystals that have been formed do not return 
to their former shape but in fact stay in their new shape - and it 
is this new shape that is the reason why homeopathic medicine 
makes logical sense. It makes not the slightest difference how 
much you dilute your starting sample as the crystal shape of the 
solution will already have been formed. As soon as the chemical 
is added to the water, all the water takes on the vibration of that 

What I have discovered is that this science, which is often 
referred to as that of dilution, is not new and was proved many 
times in the early 1900s, particularly by J.C. Bose and Lilly 
Kolisko. (You can read a whole chapter on Bose later in the book.) 
Bose analysed the behaviour of plants by giving them different 
levels of poison to see how this would affect their growth rate, 
and discovered the principle that the greater the dilution of the 
poison, the more positive an effect it would have on the plant. 
However, Bose only attempted a few experiments in order to 
prove his theory, and did not take the concept as far as a dilution 
of many billions of times. This was left to Kolisko, who, in 1923, 
conducted experiments on seeds by soaking them in diluted 
quantities of poisons. She called this area of science "smallest 
entities", work in which she had gained a large amount of 
knowledge through her experiments. 

In one experiment, wheat seeds had undergone treatment in 



a seed bath containing quicksilver (mercury) chloride starting 
with a dilution of i in 10 and progressing to a dilution of 
i in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The wheat was 
immersed for two hours in these various dilutions and then 
grown in the field until fully matured. The seeds that had been 
exposed to the smallest dilutions completely died as if they had 
been poisoned by the quicksilver chloride (which of course they 
had), and the seeds that had been soaked in a solution of 1 to 
1,000 parts water achieved normal growth. However, the seeds 
that were exposed to solutions equivalent to 1 part quicksilver 
to 10 million parts water or above all achieved increased growth 
with improved wheat content. In effect, this was a proof of the 
principle that dilution can benefit the growth and presumed 
health of plants. 

Fast-forward now to the 1990s, when another scientist took 
this concept of dilution a stage further and discovered that water 
was the unique factor in the dilution effect. If you read about the 
history of the French doctor who made the assertion that water 
retains vibrational waves, Jacques Benveniste, you would think 
that he had threatened the very existence of Western medicine. 
In a documentary about Benveniste made in 1994, soon after 
his assertions had caused such a medical storm, documentary- 
maker Tony Edwards concluded that for some reason the medical 
establishment chose to stitch him up. 

I read Benveniste's letter of reply in an issue of the journal 
Nature that was published a few weeks after the original 
document, and I have never read an article containing so much 
suppressed anger. I can see why he felt he had been stitched up; 
it would be like two buffoons who knew nothing about science 
coming into a laboratory and performing with a live musical 
band in front of experiments in which sound plays a vital role. 



He concludes his reply with the following words: 

/ now believe this kind of inquiry must immediately be stopped 
throughout the world. Salem witch hunts or McCarthy like 
prosecutions will kill science. Science flourishes only in freedom. 
We must not let, at any price, fear, blackmail, anonymous 
accusation, libel and deceit nest in our labs. Our colleagues are 
overwhelmingly utmost decent people, not criminals. To them, 
I say: never, but never let these people get in your lab. The only 
way definitively to establish confiding results is to reproduce 
them. It may be that all of us are wrong in good faith. This is no 
crime but science as usual and only the future knows. 

So what was it that caused such fear in the scientific community? 
Maybe it was because the idea that water could have some sort of 
"memory" was so unbelievable to Sir John Maddox, the editor of 
Nature, that he had no other choice but to dismiss the concept 
out of hand. Call me old-fashioned, but isn't it the purpose of 
science to be open to new and challenging ideas and welcome 
such scientific experiments? 

I have to admit that I have been biased in my time against 
homeopathy, purely because of the media campaign against it. I 
believed that reducing an element down to a level smaller than 
that of an atom did not make sense. No-one ever explained to 
me that it was nothing to do with this whatsoever. The power of 
homeopathy is not related to the chemical nature of the water. 
The fact that there is only an atom left of the substance that has 
been placed in the water is a complete red herring. The important 
factor is that the water absorbs the vibrations. 

As far as I understand it, water does not have a memory, 
and this is a completely incorrect way of describing it. If we said 
fabricated steel also has a memory, springs have a memory, any 



sheet metal that has been bent into another shape has a memory, 
it does not mean that the sheet metal can remember its life 
when it was flat, just as it does not mean water can remember 
how it was before the additive was put in it. The very notion of 
memory should be taken out of all of the correspondence to do 
with water as it implies something completely incorrect. Water 
does not have memory as we know it. Water is able to change its 
vibrational properties, that is all. 

I am not claiming here that homeopathic pills work - all I am 
suggesting is that the science behind the concept is very logical 
and agrees with all of the science I have uncovered. However, I 
do have one major problem with homeopathic medicine: how 
do you transform a vibrational pattern from water into a pill and 
still retain the same vibration? I would guess that studies looking 
into the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments would have 
very mixed results if they analysed both water- and pill-based 
homeopathic medicine. I would assume that the vibrations of 
the water-based treatment would be more effective than those 
of a pill, for which I believe the vibrational content would be so 
far removed from its water one as to be almost redundant. I am 
open-minded on this point, and if someone from a homeopathic 
manufacturer explained to me how they transfer vibrations from 
water to solids without changing them, I could be persuaded that 
both forms of treatment were effective. For now, however, I can 
only say that water-based homeopathic treatment makes complete 
logical sense to me, but not treatment in pill form. 


Between March and April 1955, Professor Piccardi conducted three 
hundred pairs of experiments in order to test his assertion that 
water behaves differently depending upon its physical state. He 

8 7 


concluded that his "experiments reveal something highly unusual; 
agitation or turbulence seems to be capable of determining the effect 
of the water". But most importantly, he makes the proposition that: 

"Perhaps it is even by means of water and the aqueous system 
that external forces are able to react on living organisms". 

In 1962, Piccardi wrote: "Why is it that natural water drunk at 
a spring is more effective from a medical point of view than the 
same water bottled and aged?" Why is natural water so different 
from a medical point of view in spite of the fact that the difference in 
chemical composition reveals nothing in particular? He talks about 
these facts as if they were common knowledge back in 1962, but the 
science behind this opinion seems to have become lost to us since 
then. So why are all of Piccardi's important findings buried in a 
book that was published almost fifty years ago, ideas that should be 
in mainstream science today? If it is true that water is the conduit 
for many of the unexplained activities that occur in our bodies, this 
should be investigated with the utmost urgency. The possibilities 
for improving our health cannot be overstated. 

If water is so important, imagine the effects that poor quality 
water may be having on us already. If water can retain all of the bad 
vibrations that scientists have suggested, might it be possible for 
these vibrations to start to have an effect on us the moment we drink 
a glass of water from the tap? The water enters our body through our 
mouth and will start to affect everything that it comes into contact 
with. The bacteria within the stomach and intestines will be vibrated 
to a different equilibrium level and will change their status, possibly 
producing bad bacteria that have a secondary effect elsewhere within 
the body. 

This one idea that water can affect bacteria in the gut is far- 



reaching as the bacteria is part of the first port of call for all food 
that enters the body. If we assume that "you are what you eat" and 
that the food that enters your body starts to be digested within the 
stomach, the body is set up to release all the good constituents of 
the food and discard the bad contents as waste, and bacteria play 
a major part in this. The vitamins, proteins, minerals and energy 
supplied by the food then enter the bloodstream and are taken 
around the body to supply the parts that need them. Imagine if the 
bacteria within the gut were not operating correctly because of the 
bad water being drunk. This would be a nightmare scenario as it 
could imply that, in order to stay healthy, we would all have to drink 
fresh natural mineral water, of which there really is not enough to 
go around. 


I know why I eat: because food gives me energy. But I have no idea 
why I need to drink. I have asked myself this question many times, 
and the only answer that I come up with is because I am thirsty, 
which is not really a very satisfying answer. Why am I being told 
that I need to drink two litres of water a day in order to stay healthy? 
What would happen if I didn't? I, like most people, do not drink that 
amount of water as it is too much of an inconvenience, plus the fact 
it means I have to be constantly aware of where toilets are located. 
When I drink lots of water, it just goes through me very quickly, so 
I assume that my body does not need it in the first place. I falsely 
believed that if my body needed it, it would retain the water, and the 
less I went to the toilet, the better. It turns out that this is incorrect 
and in fact I could be doing myself a serious amount of physical 
damage by not drinking enough water. 

It came as a great surprise to me that this knowledge has only 



very recently been brought to the fore. If it had not been for one 
man in particular, in 1992, writing a book explaining and proving 
the damage that we were doing to our health, we would all still be 
blissfully unaware that being partially dehydrated causes illnesses 
such as arthritis, ulcers, high blood cholesterol, asthma and allergies. 

Fereydoon Batmanghelidj only discovered this fact through a 
twist of fate. He had the misfortune to be practising medicine in Iran 
at the time of the Shah's overthrow in the 1970s. As a consequence, 
he was thrown into prison. During his time there, he noticed that 
many patients were being diagnosed with peptic ulcers, and that 
medication, of which there was a major shortage, failed to relieve 
their symptoms. As Batmanghelidj was a doctor, the prisoners 
turned to him for help. The only medicine he had was water, and he 
suggested that one particular prisoner should take it to alleviate his 
symptoms. To both their surprise, drinking the water relieved all the 
symptoms of pain within only ten minutes. On completing a course 
of rehydration, drinking water six times a day, the ulcer completely 

Three years later, on release from the prison, Batmanghelidj 
escaped to America, where he carried on his research into the benefits 
of being hydrated and discovered that this fundamental philosophy 
had been misunderstood. Doctors had completely ignored the fact 
that we need to be hydrated for our body to function properly, and 
that dehydration will cause the onset of symptoms. This is not 
strange as water regulates every single feature in our body. Water 
is in every single cell, so any change in its equilibrium level will 
affect the cell's behaviour. When the body is partially dehydrated, 
the body rations the water using its own drought management 
system. Extreme symptoms of dehydration are, however, not what 
you would expect. I am sure you would imagine that if the body 
needed water, we would get thirsty. Sadly, this is not the case - the 



most common symptom is in fact pain. 

I can talk from experience here. Having spent many holidays 
on the beach, I know that my body never told me that I was lacking 
water until my head started to explode with pain. This was always 
way too late to stop it from ruining my evening. Why did my body 
not tell me during the day, while I was sitting on the beach, soaking 
up the sun's rays, that I needed to top up my bodily fluids? All it had 
to do was tell my mouth, create the thirst sensation, and I could have 
still enjoyed my social life in the evening. Instead, I just suffered 
severe pain. If my headache's were caused by a lack of water, could 
it not also be true that other pains are also caused by a lack of water 
and can therefore be cured simply by topping up our bodily water 

This begs the question, then, what is thirst if it is not our 
body's response to a shortage of water? Strangely, the scientific 
relationship between thirst and drinking is very weak, indeed 
almost non-existent. The same is true of hunger and eating. How 
strange that science claims to know so much about our body yet 
does not even understand the two most fundamental aspects of 
life, eating and drinking. We all know that when we are hungry 
we should eat, and when we are thirsty we should drink, but no- 
one knows what exactly the triggers are for this. I know a bit about 
hunger because my father wrote a book called Why We Eat, which 
was aimed at doctors who distribute appetite suppressants. While 
he was writing the book, I chatted to him about hunger and was 
astonished that current science had absolutely no idea why we get 
hungry. It is obviously the same with thirst. If it were just a trigger 
for being dehydrated, we would get thirsty much more often. It 
appears that science is probably looking the wrong way when trying 
to find the answer to this problem, and I don't believe it will ever 
find the answer if scientists are just looking at the observational side 

9 1 


of science. 

I would imagine that thirst and hunger are triggered when 
the body has a disequilibrium in, say, its natural energy level, or 
when its vibrational frequency has changed in a specific area of the 
body. This would then trigger a response in the mouth or stomach 
depending on the message that was being sent. This message is not 
sent via the neural pathways but on the vibrational waves of water. 
This is purely a guess on my part, but it is one that I feel should be 
investigated further. 

Just as I have suggested a very strange idea to solve a problem, 
science itself has looked at an unusual one in order to help women 
in labour. If you are pregnant and are about to go into labour, you 
might be surprised, when crying out in pain for a large shot of 
pethidine, to be told you are not going to receive any medication 
but are instead going to get an injection of water into your lower 
back area. I am pretty sure not many women would be pleased to be 
told this, for what good could water be in pain relief? But you would 
be surprised to know it is very effective. Studies have proved that 
"sterile water injections provide good pain relief, particularly for low 
back pain during labour". According to Batmanghelidj, the reason 
for this is very clear: the pain is caused by dehydration. He writes 
a chapter on lower back pain in his book Your Body's Many Cries 
For Water. In his chapter on rheumatoid arthritis, he concludes 
that lower back pain "indicates that the lower back joint is not fully 
prepared to endure the pressure until it is fully hydrated". Lower 
back pain, he declares, can be cured by water. 

If this is true, I can see no logical problems with it providing the 
solution to the issue of pain in childbirth. It is a question of providing 
the joints with enough pressure to sustain the extra requirements 
that pushing a child out of the womb involves. Drinking large 
amounts of water during childbirth would provide this, but as far as 

9 2 


I remember at my sons' births, this was never suggested. So a quick 
fix is to provide an injection of water into the lower back area. A very 
cheap and effective solution to the pain in childbirth without any 
side effects. 

I had naively assumed that the doctors who utilise this 
method would be aware of the reasons why it works and had seen 
Batmanghelidj's book. However, having read a study that analysed 
the success of this method of pain relief, I was brought back down to 
earth. The researchers who wrote the article concluded that "to our 
knowledge, there is no study with the primary aim of investigating 
the underlying mechanisms of action underlying sterile water 
injections". Oh yes, there is. Just look at the bibliography in 
Batmanghelidj's book and you will find there is lots of evidence. 
Why do a study when several have already been done? So here is 
my recommendation to the midwifery community: I recommend 
that all women drink sensible amounts of water during child birth 
to relieve pain. Common sense tells me that if injecting water into 
the lower back relieves pain, so will drinking it. 

What I did not expect to find was that injecting water not 
only reduced the pain, but also significantly reduced the number 
of Caesarean sections that were performed. In a meta-analytical 
review (this is the authoritative statistical scientific jargon for 
reviewing a collection of studies, which is often used to prove a 
theory) of sterile water injections, the researchers concluded that 
injecting sterile water was so effective that a large study should be 
mounted to validate their findings. "Such a study would be ideally 
a double blinded placebo control design ... ." Then what? I thought 
that a meta-analysis was supposed to prove something conclusively 
one way or another. It appears, however, that the researchers were 
so astonished by their findings that they needed more studies to 
provide proof that the conclusions they had come to were correct. 



Once such studies had been done, I would assume that another 
meta-analysis would have to be conducted to confirm the findings, 
and the whole merry-go-round of trials and studies would continue 
until the simple idea that drinking water can relieve back pain in 
pregnancy and reduce the number of Caesarean sections was 
generally accepted. 

One more consideration from Batmanghelidj is related to 
drug trials. If water relieves the pain from illnesses, this can pose 
a problem in many different drug experiments. He surmises that, 
when taking a pill in a clinical drug trial, the patient happens to 
utilise a glass of water to help swallow the pill, and the very action of 
ingesting the water could be a factor when measuring the success 
of a particular drug. Maybe the water itself is playing an active role 
that could affect the trial. Batmanghelidj theorizes that water has 
its effect before the biological substance is absorbed into the blood. 
He also suggests "that the high cure rates with placebo in controlled 
studies reported up to now were not without good reason. Any 
interpretation or comparison of medication against placebo should 
be reconsidered due to the body's response to water as a natural 
medicine". Drug companies take note. In order to get the most 
accurate results in clinical trials, human guinea-pigs should take 
their medication dry, so as not to provide any false-positive results. 


To complete the picture of how amazing water is, I had to read books 
on quantum physics and the role of electrons and ionization. I am going 
to spare you the details as they are far too complicated for a book of this 
nature. The science that I am going to refer you to, however, was started 
by Bernard and Alberte Pullman in 1963 with their book on quantum 
biochemistry. This was then taken to a new level by Albert Szent- 
Gyorgyi, who, building on the Pullmans' discoveries, started a new 



science that he called bioelectronics. Within this new area of science, 
he chose to look at how the body worked from an energy perspective as 
he believed that the cell is the same as a machine - it needs energy to 
make it work. This was the basis for a new way of looking at biology. On 
the one hand you have the molecular biochemists, and on the other the 
bioelectronicists; Szent-Gyorgyi believed that these were two different, 
indeed opposite, ways of looking at the life of the cell. And you cannot 
come to an understanding of how the cell works unless you understand 
both these issues. 

What was so interesting for me was that Szent-Gyorgyi discussed 
the properties of water in his book, and because my radar was very 
much on high alert to unusual properties of water, I read this section 
with great interest. I have translated his physics into an easier form of 
visualization because the technical jargon is very confusing. So I am 
going to talk about atoms and electrons in a way that I can make into a 
simple mental picture, which I find works really well. 

One of the smallest objects is the atom, which is often portrayed as 
a circle, (the electrons) with a dot in the middle (the nucleus). Imagine 
now a person (the nucleus) standing in a field with a very long rope 
and a ball at the end of it (the electrons), and then imagine the person 
starting to swing the ball around and around in a giant circle - this is 
the equivalent of a textbook diagram of an atom, a circle with a dot in the 
middle. You can think of the energy of the atom as being the amount 
of energy that the person uses to keep the ball swinging around. What 
is of interest to scientists is how much energy is needed for this and 
how much energy would be required for the person to swing the ball 
so fast that it would leave the rope and go off into the distant field, 
town or even universe. The further the better, it seems: a question that 
scientists always like to ask is how much energy would be required for 
the ball to be flown into infinity. 

Now back to water. In one of his descriptions of energy, Szent- 



Gyorgyi talks about problems with understanding certain energy 
issues in biology. When analysing the simplest of all atoms, that of 
hydrogen, the energy required to swing the ball (electrons) around 
is smallest when the hydrogen atom is mixed with an oxygen 
atom to form water. So now we have to imagine two people in the 
middle swinging two balls, and the combination of Mr hydrogen 
with Ms oxygen creates an equilibrium in which swinging the ball 
requires the least amount of energy out of every combination of 
people standing in the middle. You can't get a more efficient form 
of swinging the ball on the long rope than that of water. As water 
is technically two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom you would 
actually have to imagine three people in the middle but I am not 
going to be too picky on that one! 

One more unusual feature of water is that the amount of energy 
required using the people in the middle to allow the ball to break 
free from the rope and send it into infinity (known as the ionization 
potential) is the largest known amount of energy in nature. So water 
has this incredible facility in that it is in fact the lowest energy point 
of nature, with nothing below it in terms of energy and nothing 
above it in terms of strength amongst all biological substances. 
Even someone like me who knows nothing about physics would 
sit up and take notice of this fact as it means, yet again, that water 
is unique, and the more we investigate it the more impressive it 
becomes. Could water be unique in this area for a reason? Could 
water have a role not only in vibrations, but also in energy within all 
biological systems? 

It was only discovered in January 2010 that there was "ultrafast 
energy transfer between water atoms" that had hitherto been 
unknown, and it has been suggested that this has "far-reaching 
consequences for biological systems", although exactly what those 
are were unclear in the article. But taking this discovery a stage 



further and incorporating all that I have shown on water so far in 
this chapter, could one take an intuitive step and question whether 
water maybe plays a far greater role in our bodies' energy transfer 
than had previously been imagined? I know that the idea of water 
being the conduit for the body's ability to receive vibrations was 
pretty much unheard of before now, so might the major idea that 
water has a twofold role, one of vibration transfer and another of 
energy transfer, not be so farfetched? Sadly, I have not found any 
scientific papers on the relationship between energy transfer and 
water in the human body to confirm or deny this, so I will just have 
to leave this question open for the moment. 

Water does play a role in the present biochemical interpretation 
of how energy is transferred around the body through a chemical 
called ATP and intracellular components called mitochondria, but 
there is nothing that looks at alternatives to this idea that place 
more emphasis on the water content than on the red blood cells 
themselves, even though nearly 90% of the blood is made up of 
water. This is a great shame. I believe that science so far has ignored 
two fundamental aspects of water: its vibrational capabilities and 
its ability to generate and transfer energy. If water has the ability 
to do both of these things, this opens up a completely new area 
of science that provides such simple solutions to many issues that 
have stumped scientists until now. 


I am not sure whether it is just coincidence, but twice I have been 
inspired while being on holiday sitting next to fresh running water. 
The first time was on holiday in Northern Spain, where the ideas 
about the beginning of life appeared in my head out of nowhere 
(see the next section). The second time was in Majorca, where I was 
sitting on a jetty with my feet dangling in the fresh Mediterranean 



water and an idea that was so extraordinary just popped into my 
head. It was so simple that I did not know why I had not thought 
about it before; if it were true, it would completely change the way in 
which we perceive energy and all of its New Age hippy connotations. 
What on earth, I always asked myself, are energy healers? What 
energy are they referring to? When people discuss their energy 
levels, what exactly is an energy level? While sitting by the water in 
Majorca, it occurred to me that it was all about vibrations. 

What was the idea that suddenly occurred to me out of the 
blue? It was simply the fact that the levels of frequency could also 
be considered as potential levels of energy, so that the greater the 
frequency, the more energy would be available. As discussed earlier 
in the chapter, water can have different frequencies, measured as the 
number of hertz (Hz) it generates. The smaller the number of hertz, 
the lower the frequency it is generating per second. A microwave 
has a frequency per second millions of times more than that of a 
sound wave, which can be anything from 20 to 20,000 Hz. I had 
thought that all frequencies had the ability to generate energy, for 
example light, but microwaves generate energy that can simply be 
measured in the form of heat, and heat is in fact a very good way of 
determining the level of energy generated. 

I am not sure whether you can exactly equate different 
frequencies with different energy levels, but I am sure you can 
equate frequencies with potential energy, which for my purpose is all 
that I need - the lower the frequency the lower the potential energy, 
and the higher the frequency the higher the potential energy. There 
must for water be an equilibrium frequency, a vibration at which 
it is perfectly balanced. Any variation away from this level would 
mean that the water would need to have an increase or a decrease in 
its vibration to achieve its natural vibrational level. 

As an example, I previously reported that a sample of polluted 



water had a frequency of 1.8 Hz. If, for argument's sake, natural 
spring water has a frequency of 8 Hz, this would imply that the 
polluted water was lacking in vibrational energy by a value of 6.2 Hz 
(8 - 1.8 = 6.2). So how could the water get this extra energy? If left to 
its own devices, I would argue that nature would restore it through 
movement. Polluted water will at some point enter the climatic 
cycle; it will evaporate, form clouds and come down as rain, during 
which it will be unburdened of the chemical pollutant vibration. 
However, I believe there are many opportunities within that cycle 
for water to restore its vibrational energy levels, and not just when 
it is cleaned by evaporation and rainfall. I believe the spinning 
movement of water while in a vortex can do the same thing. 

In the case of the biodynamic farming we talked about earlier, 
the spinning of the water is giving it more energy, and this energy 
helps it to achieve its objective in cultivating bacteria that nourish the 
soil. Water creates such vortices in streams and fast-moving rivers, I 
would argue, so that water can achieve its natural energy levels, and 
in order to restore water's energy levels, it is simply necessary to stir 
it. The same I believe happens in the blood, a vortex motion helping 
to maintain the blood's energy levels. 

Imagine if you mixed polluted water that had a low energy 
level of, say, 1.8 Hz with water that had been stirred for twenty-four 
hours and had a higher energy level of 10 Hz. What would happen 
to the water? Wouldn't the polluted water grab the extra energy 
from the stirred water? Water would always be striving to obtain its 
natural level of 8 Hz and would attempt to grab the missing energy 
from whatever source it could - in this case, the stirred water. A 
new energy equilibrium position would be achieved depending on 
the different proportions of the two types of water that were mixed 
together. Energy would flow from the stirred water to the polluted 



Imagine this was taking place in your body. The polluted water 
would grab as much vibrational energy from wherever it could in 
order for it to attempt to regain its natural level. And this energy would 
have to be taken from somewhere. The resulting disequilibrium is, 
I suggest, one that we all recognise - tiredness. The polluted water 
is pulling any spare energy that you have, and unless you replace 
it, the only consequence will be for you to feel tired as your body is 
naturally short of vibrational energy. 

The same effect would, however, occur with the water that had 
been stirred for twenty-four hours, and I believe the effect would 
depend on how healthy you were in the first place. If you were a 
normal healthy person with a natural frequency of 8 Hz, your body 
would have too much energy and would try and get rid of it. I have 
no idea how it would achieve this, just that it seems logically obvious 
that it would. If, however, the body could not get rid of this excess 
energy, it might very well enter into an equilibrium level that was 
disadvantageous for the efficient workings of the body, and tiredness 
might also ensue. 

If natural vibrations are the answer to energy, this highly 
significant discovery should be embraced more fully in our 
understanding of human interactions. Depressed people are more 
likely to have a lower hertz value and will suck the hertz out of happy 
people. This is probably the reason why depressed people have 
generally been shown to socialise with other depressed people, and 
when we talk about friends bringing you down, what we really mean 
are friends bringing down your natural hertz levels. 


I have read a lot of theories on the reasons why life began on this 
planet, but none of them seems to acknowledge the role of water. I 



would like to put forward my own new idea of why life began, and 
as a consequence of this theory I propose that not all distant planets 
with a water content will have life on them. 

My second spontaneous idea, just like the one I described in 
the previous section, was so obvious that I could not understand 
why I had not thought of it before. I happened to be on holiday in 
Spain and was escaping from the midday heat in a forest in the 
hills just north of Madrid. I was lying next to a beautiful stream in 
which the water was cascading down from the mountain. I took a 
few photographs of the water in the hope that I would be able to 
capture some images of vortices being created as it bounced around 
the rocks. At this moment, I was wondering how important these 
vortices were to the behaviour of the water and how water was 
affected by its environment. Looking at one of the mountains, I had 
an idea that water behaved like it did because of the environment 
in which it found itself, Earth, a mountainous landscape, where 
the water in the rivers goes through many different journeys of 
change. The water is dropped from the clouds in the form of rain, 
which then collects in small streams, joining up to form even bigger 
ones, charging down the steep slopes of the mountain, eventually 
running into flatter, calmer conditions further downstream, then 
forming larger rivers, and eventually flowing out into the relative 
calm of the oceans. 

My thoughts turned to the changing properties of water and 
how it is different between the spring at the top of the mountain and 
when it is flowing sedately as it becomes a river. Could it be possible, 
I thought, that this pattern of change would be important to the 
creation of water that is vibrationally healthy enough to sustain life? 
If we did not have any mountains and water just fell to the ground 
into lakes and oceans, would water have vibrational properties that 
could sustain life? If not, I logically concluded that the natural shape 



of our environment was a factor in developing water to the stage at 
which it could sustain life. Could I not make an imaginative leap that 
would allow me to suggest that the most important factor in the creation 
of life on earth was when water finally developed the correct vibrational 
pattern to sustain life, and this was the most important reason why life 
on earth evolved? As soon as the water became evolved, so amino acids 
could develop into single-celled structures that could then double and 
quadruple in size until more sophisticated life forms were created. 

If this were true, life on our planet developed because of several 
factors being in place at the right time. I would argue that the 
landscape had to be mountainous, the temperature had to be right, 
the environmental gaseous conditions had to be such that water could 
form in sufficient amounts for amino acids could multiply, and the 
gravitational forces of the earth and the planets had all to be at the 
correct levels. Only when there was harmony between these variables 
could water develop to the point at which it allowed life to form. 

Logically, it follows that life on other planets might not be as 
abundant as we think. Just because water is found, it does not mean that 
the formation of life will definitely occur every time. The circumstances 
have to be right, and water has to have an environment in which it 
can develop the right vibrational pattern before life can begin. I would 
therefore argue that of course life exists on distant planets, but maybe 
not in the numbers that we all think. And it will only occur on planets 
that have a mountainous terrain and not a flat one. 


If the argument above is true, it is logical to assume that water can 
take life away as well as give it. If water became very unstable, this 
change might be so significant that cellular organisms would fail 
to develop. How could such a cataclysmic event happen? The only 



event that could be so significant would be one that completely 
affected the balance of nature, and in the case of Earth's history, 
there is only one such event - the great meteor that hit the earth and 
wiped out the dinosaurs. 

This idea was suggested to me by the book's cover designer, Steve 
Lodewyke, who became interested in the idea that water could have 
been a factor in the evolution of life on Earth. As he was fascinated by 
the anomalies of the extinction of the dinosaurs, he suggested that my 
ideas about water might play a significant role in helping to fill in the 
gaps. The current thinking is that the meteor that hit Earth millions 
of years ago caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. This is a very good 
argument, but there are a few aspects that do not make sense. If all 
of the dinosaurs were wiped out very quickly due to the effects of the 
meteor on the food supply, there would be no argument. The problem 
arises because the dinosaurs lived on after the event for thousands of 
years and came to a long, slow death rather than a quick one. How does 
this fit in with the theory of the meteor? 

The argument that I have always understood was that the meteor 
sent so much dust into the atmosphere that it caused the earth to be 
in total darkness for years, thus affecting plant growth and with it the 
lives of all of the herbivores that lived on the plants at that time. If 
the earth was in darkness, surely all of the larger animals would have 
died out very quickly as there would not have been enough food to go 
round? The only animals that would have survived would have been 
the smaller creatures that did not require very much food. A twenty- 
ton dinosaur would have to eat a lot of leaves to keep it alive, but a 
mouse would, by comparison, require very little. But how long would 
it take for all of these large dinosaurs to disappear if there was very 
little food? I would argue not very long, probably just a few generations. 
If after one hundred years they were still surviving, it is likely they 
would continue for another five hundred years. There would be no 



reason for them to become extinct based on just the food supply. But in 
fact, many dinosaurs lived for thousands of years after the meteor, so 
food cannot have been the exclusive reason for their extinction. Some 
dinosaurs survived and still exist today, chickens and sharks being two 
good examples of living dinosaurs. So why did they survive? Could the 
answer have anything to do with the properties of water? 

I believe, with Steve, that there is some logic in assuming that it was 
a combination of the meteor and the properties of water that combined 
to cause the extinction of the dinosaurs. I believe that this cataclysmic 
event had such a huge effect on the environment that all of the Earth's 
water came into contact with new pollutants, atmospheric differences, 
electromagnetic changes (as the earth would have shifted its orbit due 
to the force of the meteor), temperature shifts and the unavailability of 
light. Water would be one of the first factors to be affected, causing it to 
change its vibrational pattern. 

What effect would this new vibrational equilibrium have on living 
organisms? This is purely speculative, but I would argue that the 
new vibrational level would affect the larger animals in a similar way 
to humans today - they would get seriously fatigued. A twenty-ton 
dinosaur that was used to grazing all day for food would not, due to the 
changed water, have enough energy to forage all day. The water would 
be slowly draining it of energy. This would not cause the dinosaur to 
starve, but over the longer term the species would slowly die out. The 
reason that smaller animals adapted could be for twofold: firstly, they 
did not need so much food so being fatigued did not affect them quite 
as much, and secondly, their life-span was so much shorter that they 
could have evolved more quickly and adapted to the change. A dinosaur 
that lives for one hundred years might take twenty generations or 
even fifty to change, which could amount to thousands of years. If it 
did not change within that time, it would die out. Smaller animals 
that live just for a few years would have evolved much more quickly 

10 4 


- for them fifty generations could occur in only two hundred years, 
giving them a chance to adapt. 

This is all purely speculative on my part, but it does offer a new 
and exciting concept to explain some of the inconsistencies in the 
current models for the extinction of the dinosaurs. 


If you believe anything that I have written about the properties of 
water, I beg you not to go out looking to buy water-based products 
that allege to restore water back to its natural levels. I have yet to 
find one product in the field of water that provides any scientific 
evidence to prove that it is effective. Many of them make amazing 
spurious claims about how they can do this, that and the other, but 
not one of them has any proper science to back it up. 

If so many people are developing machines that restore dirty 
water back to its original state, they have to provide proof of how 
they do it, but as yet I can find no scientific paper proving these 
machines work in a way that I find convincing. This is not to say, 
however, that the machines do not work to change the properties 
of water, but I am not yet convinced. Strangely, what convinces me 
more is not allegations of success by people who are marketing 
a product, but more the success of an industry that has taken on 
a technology and run with it, producing tangible results. I am of 
course referring back to biodynamic farming. It seems much clearer 
to me, from observing nature, that it is not necessary to introduce 
any electrical stimulus into water to restore its properties as this 
concept is not found anywhere in nature. It is much more likely that 
the simple solution of creating a vortex will have that effect. 

So are there simple machines that spin water in a vortex? Yes, 
but lots of them make such spurious claims that it offends me to 



even mention them. In biodynamic farming, there are instructions 
to say you must spin the water in two directions for up to one hour in 
order to get the properties right in the water. I am not sure whether 
there is any difference between one or two hours of spinning as there 
is no research that has looked into this difference. But the machines 
I found do not make any claims in terms of how long they should 
be used for - some suggest that just a few spins will have a positive 
effect. Some are left on all the time, but this sounds particularly bad 
as too much spinning might create an overabundance of energy in 
the water, which would do no-one any good. 

Maybe the problem would be clarified by scientists just 
measuring the different frequencies of the water in a series of 
simple experiments and testing the length of different vortices and 
the effect these had on the vibrational pattern of the water. Whole 
industries could then be developed on the back of such discoveries, 
from water for agricultural use through to drinking water. This is 
a vast industry, yet it seems that it is being ignored. If I had the 
money, I would be investigating it right now, through proper 
scientific channels, and proving it all very clearly. I would then take 
this science and show that crops grew better, seeds propagated 
more reliably and grew faster, and tap water became healthier, and 
create a billion dollar business within a generation. Anyway, that is 
my dream, one which I am not going to do for the simple reason I 
don't have enough money to do it. But if I won the lottery, it is the 
first thing I would spend my money on! 


Now this is where two chapters merge and produce powerful 
evidence that is very scary. I use the word "scary" because once you 
have an idea that something in your body can pick up on vibrating 



waves, some very significant ideas will logically follow. One of these 
is that water is not only a very crucial part of our biology, but is also 
directly affected by the cycle of the planets. If water itself is affected 
by the orbiting planets and behaves differently on different days of 
the week based upon the alignment of the planets, this would have 
to mean that our bodies are biologically affected via the changing 
pattern of the water itself. 

The next chapter covers many scientific papers proving beyond 
doubt that the moon does have a biological effect on us. I would 
argue that this effect is picked up by the water content in our 
bodies, but this is just my interpretation. The scientists who have 
proved that the moon has an effect on our biology do not attempt 
to understand how this works, just the fact that it does. If, on the 
other hand, you can accept the possibility that water is the conduit 
for gravitational forces influenced by the moon, you really are going 
to enjoy the leap of faith you are about to make. 





Introduction To 

The Sun and 
the Moon 

Madness, Menstruation and Manure 

" Whoever desires properly to investigate the art of 
medicine must first take into consideration the 
seasons of the year, and how each is capable of 
operating, for they not only do not resemble each 
other but differ widely the one from the other in 
the changes they bring about". 

Hippocrates, Greek physician 400 B.C. 




It wasn't until recently that I became aware of my complete 
ignorance about the moon. My knowledge was so limited that 
I actually didn't know how many times the moon goes round 
the Earth each day. I also didn't know whether there were any 
nights in the month in which the moon does not appear. In fact, 

there were lots of things 
about the moon I really had 
not bothered to think about. 
Even though I calculated 
I had looked at it over ten 
thousand times in my 
lifetime, I had never really 
thought about it. So, when 
I did take the time to think 
about it in a very casual sort 
The full moon of way, my thoughts turned 

to the tides, as this was the only fact I was aware of. I thought that if 
the moon can move oceans, which are just made of water, and we as 
humans are made up of, give or take, 70% water, it seemed obvious 
that the moon must be having an effect on the water in my body. 
How, or to what extent, I did not know; it just seemed to be logical 
that it did. 

How does the moon affect the tides? Certainly not in the way 
I had always imagined. I was under the impression the moon 
somehow pulled the water one way or another, and if it were high 
tide at one side of the ocean, it would naturally be low tide at the 
other. But this is not quite accurate. What in fact happens is that 
the gravitational forces of the moon and the sun actually cause the 
oceans to bulge, and the tide is caused by this bulge being higher 
toward the orbiting moon. And this gravitational effect is not the 



same every day: it varies, due to the unusual characteristics of 
gravity. When two gravitational forces such as the sun and the 
moon are aligned, their pull is the equivalent to adding the sun's 
and the moon's forces together. And if the planet Mercury were also 
aligned, its gravitational force would then be added to the sun's and 
the moon's - there would be a cumulative effect. This is why we have 
very high tides on specific days of the year, commonly when the sun 
is aligned directly with the moon, such as the spring tide, which is 

always one of the highest. 

At the time of 
thinking about the moon, I 
did not really care how the 
moon achieved its effects, 
just that it did. But it was 
the idea the moon must 
also be affecting the water 
in my body that caused me 
to question some very basic 

The moon in front of the sun 

facts about how my body 
worked. What effect this internal tide had on me was completely 
unknown at the time, but my general Western scientific education 
had instilled in me a belief that the moon does nothing. I imagined 
that lots of scientific studies had been set up to prove this. But had 
they? Have studies been done that prove this beyond doubt? Spending 
time researching this question has in fact caused me to come to quite 
the opposite conclusion. Indeed, a large number of studies have been 
conducted which show there is a direct link between the moon's cycle 
and the behaviour of animals, plants and humans. The same is so with 
the sun, but even more surprising to me was that it is not just the moon 
and the sun, but the other planets as well, such as Jupiter and Mars, 
that affect the biological behaviour of living organisms. 



One of the many scientific papers I read was in the journal New 
Scientist from December 1977. It described the following study on 
a blind man who had been kept in isolation for a month in order to 
analyse his sleeping behaviour. Drs L.E.M. Miles, D.M. RaynalandM.A. 
Wilson of Stanford University School of Medicine and the Palo Alto 
Veterans Administration hospital studied a blind man who displayed 
sleeping patterns that were more associated with the lunar day of 
24.84 hours than the solar day of 24 hours. They discovered that the 
patient suffered from a complete synchronisation of all of his natural 
bodily rhythms to a 24.84 hour day that was indistinguishable from 
that of a lunar cycle: 

Blind man goes lunar 

The patient is a psychologically normal man who has been blind 
since birth but has lived and worked in normal society. He is an 
active postgraduate student at a major university and for several 
years has suffered severe insomnia and day time sleepiness 
for two to three week periods followed by one to two weeks of 
normality. He has made strenuous efforts to adjust to normal 
living, for example, by using sleep-inducing and stimulating 
drugs, but these have only marginal effects. A sleep and 
activities diary kept for a short time by the patient suggested 
that he had a free-running circadian rhythm with a period 
slightly longer than the 24 hours. The sleep record showed a 
distinct drift in his sleep pattern and he entered hospital for a 26 
day period of observation and tests. During this period, he was 
encouraged to work, eat and sleep and interact with others as 
he wished and he retained all time cues, except of course sight. 
His sleep cycle settled down to a 24. 9 hour cycle with respect to 
the normal diurnal cycle. He returned home to his normal life 
style and drug course and his ineffectual attempts to keep a 24 
hour cycle are clearly shown. In the final period, 



he agreed to undergo a form of training during which he was 
forced to sleep during the normal night and was kept awake 
during the normal day. It soon became clear that his own cycle 
continued quite unaffected. 

What is so typical here is that no follow-up study was done by 
these or any other researchers. In fact, I have not been able to find 
any further research that has been conducted into the lunar effect 
and sleep patterns in blind people. There are many studies on the 
problems blind people have with sleep dysfunction but none that 
looks specifically at the lunar cycle. In an experiment in 2002 into 
this "strange" behaviour, twenty-six blind people were assessed over 
a fourteen-day period, the conclusions being that blind people suffer 
from daytime sleepiness and poor night-time sleep, facts that were 
already known. Other studies with titles such as "Day-time naps and 
melatonin in blind people", "Sleep/wake disorders in blind people" 
and "Disturbance of sleep in blindness" all refer to the same point, 
which is that blind people don't sleep very well. But what all of these 
studies fail to do is to look for the cause of the problem in order to 
find the solution. In fact, I would say that in most of the thousands 
of scientific studies I have looked at, this is a recurring problem. 
Science is always looking to put a plaster over the problem and fix 
it that way, mostly via drugs, rather than looking for the root cause. 

In the case of blind people, the problem is caused by their 
relationship to the lunar cycle, which means they have daily sleep 
patterns that follow the 24.8-hour lunar day and not the 24-hour 
sunlight sleep pattern. The blind man's internal clock is regulated 
by the moon. Sadly, the only solution scientists are searching 
for is a chemical solution to solve why the sleep pattern is out of 
order. All of the studies point towards the body's changing levels 
of melatonin to explain the issue, but for some unknown reason 



no-one is looking at what is causing the melatonin levels to change. 
Surely scientists can't suggest that the body just changes its natural 
equilibrium level without reason? So they have come up with new 
catchphrases to describe the issue, such as "sleep-phase delay" and 
"free-running rhythms", which could easily translate simply to 
"lunar sleep pattern" if anyone were brave enough to do this. 


Is it just blind people who have a 24.8-hour day rhythm, or do all of 
us in fact have one? Is there anything else about the moon that we 
need to know? Have scientists looked at this issue and come up with 
any other biological issues we should all know about? In some ways, 
we can find the answers to this question simply by looking through 
the history books to see if there are any old texts that shed some light 
on this subject. It did not take me long to discover that the ancient 
Greeks and Romans all believed in the moon's effect, as did the 
Egyptians. In fact, every ancient civilised society took it for granted 
that there was a relationship between the moon and our health. In 
the quote at the beginning of the chapter, Hippocrates, the famous 
Greek philosopher, wrote in 400 bc that medicine works most 
effectively at different times of the year: some medicines will work 
best in summer, others in winter. This seems to have been common 
knowledge two and a half thousand years ago, undoubtedly based 
on observations over a long period of time. I would imagine all 
Greek medicines were therefore dispensed according to the seasons 
of the year. 

If I am permanently misaligned in my sleep cycle, like the blind 
person, it would explain why I am not always awake and alert on 
some days. Maybe my body is trying to catch up or realign itself. 
My one personal anecdotal evidence that supports this theory is an 



episode in which I found it very difficult to sleep. I mentioned this 
to my wife, who, surprisingly, had had similar sleeping problems 
during those nights. I happened to speak with a few friends over the 
next few days and mentioned to them that I was having disturbed 
sleep patterns, and coincidentally four out of the five people I spoke 
to had had exactly the same sleep problems over those specific days. 
One of the five people happened to know that there was a lunar 
eclipse of the sun during that period and suggested that the eclipse 
might have caused the problem. Now, if she had told me this before 
I started my research for this book, I would have dismissed her idea 
as sheer fantasy. But she said this while I was in the very heart of 
my research, and suddenly I thought, blimey, you might well have 
a point. I had made a complete one-hundred-and-eighty-degree 
turn because I was now accepting an alternative idea, one that 
I would have condemned as "quackery science" just a few months 

This story was just one experience I have had. I am not 
recounting it as a scientific theory of any sort; it was just an 
interesting coincidence for me, as I was already aware of the story 
of the blind person and his disturbed sleep patterns. What if, 
though, it were true, and the moon's eclipse of the sun can affect 
our sleep patterns? Should we not be aware of this? If we were, we 
could anticipate being tired on specific days, and, instead of being 
irritable with everyone, we would know that our bad moods were 
due to some predictable planetary alignment. 

I find it very sad that we have dismissed this approach as inferior 
because it does not happen to be the conclusion of a randomised 
controlled, double-blind study. Maybe scientists also believe that 
ancient wisdom was intellectually inferior. We have accepted their 
political, philosophical and moral innovations, but not, it appears, 
any of their medical ones. These groups of people achieved feats of 



engineering that today, even with all our modern technology, we 
cannot re-create. For example, there are some huge pieces of rock 
weighing more than two hundred tonnes each that were moved 
around to build ancient sites, rocks far too big for us to move 
today despite our modern machinery. Yet we still believe that our 
medicine, which after all is only about one hundred years old, is 
better, more sophisticated and more advanced than five thousand 
years of observation. I personally, would take the observational 
point of view to be just as important as our present-day double- 
blind, peer group-reviewed medical studies, which may arise from 
as much political infighting as that generated in the Roman and 
Greek political arenas. 


The moon, the sun, the planets and the Earth all emit electromagnetic 
vibrations. If it is possible to show that man-made electromagnetic 
vibrations affect sleep patterns, it would seem logical that natural 
ones can as well. Could the lights in your house or the electric clock 
radio by your bed be affecting how you sleep? Apparently they can, 
as it seems that low-level electromagnetic waves emitted by such 
devices affect your daily biological rhythms. 

In one experiment performed in special underground isolation 
units constructed to eliminate all environmental noises, patients 
were tested to see if their body had a rhythm. Each of the two 
experimental units consisted of a living room, a small kitchen and a 
bathroom. One difference between the two units, however, was that 
one was shielded from external electromagnetic fields. It was also 
equipped with facilities for introducing artificial DC or AC electric 
or magnetic fields. If there were any different patterns of sleep, daily 
activity and body temperature rhythms between the two rooms, the 
difference could therefore only be caused by electromagnetism 



emitted within the room. This could be further tested by introducing 
false electromagnetic fields into one room to see if this altered the 
subjects' behaviour. The findings clearly showed that the patients 
who spent a month underground in these rooms had a daily pattern 
that followed an average value of 24.97 ± 0.41 hours, very similar to 
the lunar pattern. 

The scientists concluded that our sleep patterns are affected 
by changes in the amount of electromagnetic waves within our 
environment, which can be altered by such objects as a clock radio. 
Could we extrapolate these results and conclude that the sun's and 
the moon's electromagnetic waves also affect us? Would it not be 
true to say that on days when the electromagnetism was particularly 
strong, such as during the full moon, or days when it was particularly 
different, such as during lunar eclipses, our sleep patterns would be 
altered as a consequence of the varying electromagnetism? It now 
seems to me painfully obvious that it must happen this way. The 
planets must affect my patterns of sleep. 

Why do we dismiss out of hand the idea that the moon affects 
our biological behaviour? One significant reason is that there 
appears to be no biochemical association that scientists can turn to. 
Nothing has been found under the microscope that explains how 
it is possible for the gravitational forces of the moon to translate 
into a biochemical effect. If you remember Chapter 1, you can guess 
what I believe is the answer to this problem - that the properties 
of water allow our body to transfer the vibrational waves emitted 
by the moon into chemical reactions. Once you can understand 
this phenomenon, everything about the moon and the sun and the 
planets becomes clear. 

It is no surprise that anti-moon science is constantly being 
put forward in studies that are then reported in the media. I will 
show you, in the following pages, how the science is in fact being 



distorted and the scientific studies proving a biological effect are 
being ignored for reasons that I can only assume result from peer 
pressure and are financially and politically motivated. This is not 
necessarily a conscious decision, but if you think about it, how much 
funding are you going to get if you propose a study that is looking 
to prove that heart attacks are related to the cycle of the planets? You 
would be right in thinking that not much funding would be coming 
your way. However, if you were considering a study that looked at 
the numbers of heart attacks and correlated them with the changes 
in the seasons, you would more easily get your funding even though 
the question would really be exactly the same. All you have done is 
replaced the word "moon" with "seasons", which is, when you think 
about it, exactly the same phenomenon. The seasons are caused by 
the cycles of the sun and the moon. 

Take the following paper as an example of how we are told about 
the moon and its relationship to our bodies. An authoritative paper 
written in 2008, entitled "Human responses to the geophysical 
daily, annual and lunar cycles", clearly concludes that there is "NO 
REGULATED BYTHE LUNAR CYCLE" (my capitals for emphasis). 
This report was supported by the EU, the Wellcome Trust, the 
Oxford NHS/ Biomedical Research Centre and the Daimler-Benz- 
Stiftung network, a hefty group of science-based organisations. 

I decided that the two authors, Russell Foster and Till 
Roenneberg, must presumably have experience in this area as the 
article was published in the journal Current Biology. In fact, after 
further research, I found that Russell Foster was Professor Russell 
Foster of the European Biological Rhythms Society, working at 
the University of Oxford, and Till Roenneberg was Professor Till 
Roenneberg, Vice-President of the European Biological Rhythms 
Society, who worked at the Institute for Medical Psychology at the 



Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. These two men sound 
like experts in their field. They are clearly knowledgeable in the area 
of biological rhythms, and I would imagine that they know all there 
is to know about the subject. Their bibliography cites one hundred 
and fifteen papers they have chosen work from in order to write 
this nine-page article outlining why the moon has no effect on 
our biological systems. Professor Foster has also written a popular 
science book called Rhythms of Life, which attempts to tell the public 
all there is to know about our bodies' natural daily cycles. 

The standard hypothesis for our bodies' natural rhythms, which 
are technically called circadian rhythms, is, says Professor Foster, 
genetic. He alleges that "time is embedded in our genes". He gives 
examples of our daily rhythms that include blood pressure, liver 
function, body temperature and the production of hormones. His 
whole book is based on an understanding of the importance of 
daily rhythms in our life, which makes for fascinating reading. The 
problem I have with the whole theory is that the solution does not 
fit the facts. If we were born with a pre-programmed daily pattern 
of behaviour, including sleep, why would it change? What are the 
mechanisms by which it could be affected? More importantly, 
scientists currently do not know any of the biological markers that 
create the circadian rhythms. It is a theory that does not fit the facts, 
but as it is such an embedded theory, it is very hard to change. 

One scientific example put forward to help prove the concept of 
genetics affecting body rhythms is the study of a rabbit that is placed 
in a cage for a year without any access to natural daylight. The rabbit 
still manages to hibernate at approximately the same time as other 
rabbits living in the wild. How is this possible? The answer could be 
twofold. Mainstream scientific interpretation is that the rabbit has a 
natural genetic body clock that tells it when to sleep. An alternative 
solution suggests there is a force that lets the rabbit know when to 



go to sleep. This force is the gravitational pull of the sun, the moon, 
the Earth, the planets or a combination of all of these. Just because 
Professor Foster's article has been peer-reviewed and published in 
a senior medical journal, it cannot be assumed that genetics is the 
only or correct cause of body rhythms. If I were Professor Foster, 
I would want to be very clear in my mind that the moon had no 
effect on human biology. I would also want to be certain that the 
sun's gravitational forces or solar flares also played no part in our 
biochemistry. I would take the time to thoroughly research the 
subject, if for no other purpose than to clear my mind that what I 
was writing gave the whole picture. 

So have the article's two authors thoroughly researched the 
area in enough detail to categorically state that the moon plays no 
part whatsoever in our biological make-up? They are aware that "a 
biological explanation remains elusive" for circadian rhythms, and 
that "animals are clearly influenced by the moon and possess internal 
clocks that can predict the lunar cycle". Yet they are categorical that 
"the moon appears to have no effect upon our physiology". They have 
no doubt that the moon has an effect on animals of all kinds, even 
though they believe the effect is too small to affect humans. They 
acknowledge that the moon produces tides, but they conclude that 
as it does not produce tides in lakes or smaller bodies of water, "let 
alone a human body", it cannot affect our biology. They even refer to 
a paper as summing up the impossibility of the moon playing a part; 
that paper was written by Roger Culver and colleagues, "who have 
summarised this point elegantly by pointing out that the moon's 
gravitational pull was less than that of a wall of a building six inches 
away". Foster and Roenneberg also agree all ancient civilisations had 
a relationship with the moon and in fact had lunar calendars that 
were based on the moon and not the sun. Does this not strike them 
as odd? Why would you follow the moon when the obvious celestial 



body is the sun? What relevance would the moon have unless it was 
thought to play a significant role in either a person's lifestyle or their 

The final paragraph of the article comes to the conclusion 
that the public is "confused", all due to the introduction of street 
lighting! This is what is causing us to have varied sleep patterns; 
and even one day's lack of sleep can produce symptoms of mania 
in adults who are vulnerable to it. Their final sentence clears it all 
up for us: "as with mania, disruption of sleep in pre-industrialised 
societies may be the cause of the association between seizures and 
the full moon". Presumably people in pre-industrialized societies 
partied so much on nights with a full moon that the sleep loss from 
such heightened social activity resulted in seizures. 

Where did these researchers get this bizarre scientific idea 
from? On further investigation, it appears to have come lock, 
stock and barrel from an article entitled "The moon and madness 
reconsidered" that was written in 1999 by a group of psychiatrists 
working at the University of California. This paper was the first one 
to come to the conclusion that any change around the full moon 
is due to the introduction of street lighting. So it appears that two 
professors working in the field of biological rhythms are taking 
their main hypothesis from three psychiatrists! 

The summary of Foster and Roenneberg's article concludes 
with the following paragraph: 

We began this review with the observation that there is 
considerable confusion and ignorance about the influence of the 
geophysical cycles on human biology. There is a strong belief by 
many that the moon has marked effects upon our health and 
well being. Yet, study after study has failed to find any consistent 
association with the moon and human pathology, physiology 
or behaviour. Occasional reports have proposed correlations 



between the phase of the moon and human phenomena, but 
nothing has been sufficiently replicated to conclude that there is 
a causal relationship. The reason for this belief is probably linked 
to the importance of moonlight in allowing human activity at 
night before artificial light was freely available, coupled with the 
endless re-telling of stories about behavioural changes associated 
with the lunar phase. If an individual expects certain behaviours 
to occur with the full moon then selective recall and/or selective 
perception will reinforce this view. As Saint Augustine wrote in 
the 5 th century "Faith is to believe what you do not yet see; the 
reward of this faith is to see what you believe". 

Now I don't know about you, but I find that conclusion really 
patronising: that everyone who believes there is a lunar relationship 
is suffering from a psychological problem. I like to think of myself 
as a person who looks at the facts. I have no bias; I have never been 
interested in the lunar cycles or our biological rhythms; I do not have 
any conceived or pre-conceived ideas. Are they seriously telling other 
scientists who have researched this area thoroughly that their science is 
wrong and it is all in their heads? 

The two professors say there is no scientific evidence to support the 
lunar relationship, only correlations (which are statistical relationships 
between two variables). The evidence does not show cause and effect. 
Well, I am sorry to say, neither does their argument for the circadian 
rhythm as they have yet to discover the cause ("a biological explanation 
remains elusive"), and without this their conclusion is no better than 
those of the scientific studies put forward by the proponents of a lunar 

Below is a summary of symptoms that have been shown to have 
a relationship with the lunar cycle, (see bibliography for full details). 
All of the studies have come to the conclusion that the sun and the 
moon play a role in our bodies' daily rhythms. All were conducted 



under strict criteria, all were peer-reviewed, and all were published in 
scientific journals. Every one of them is apparently dismissed as mere 
correlations by the two professors. 

List of symptoms: 

1. Urological admissions 

2. Stroke symptoms 

3. Epilepsy 

4. Aortic aneurysm ruptures 

5. Hospital appointments 

6. Gout attacks 

7. Mortality rates 

8. Levels of stress 

9. Blood pressure 

10. Lymphocytes (a type of white cell involved in immunity) 

11. Aggressive behaviour 

Having read these eleven studies, I do not believe that it is possible 
to state categorically that "there is no convincing evidence that the 
moon can affect the biology of our own species". For me, I think 
there is definitely room for doubt, and I would say that the moon 
does affect our biology in certain - but not all - areas. In order to 
find a more definitive answer to this problem, I spent a long time 
looking through papers in many different scientific areas, such as 
the science of plants and the special properties of water, to provide 
answers to how our biology might be being affected by the moon. 

Are there any lunar relationships in animals that can suggest 
what the actual biological relationship might be? Does animal 
behaviour differ at all during the lunar phases? The two big areas of 
research in humans concern the relationships between the moon 



and madness and birth rates. So does such a relationship ever occur 
in animals or plants? Do animals show signs of madness during a 
full moon? Do animals give birth at a full moon? I have not heard 
of nor read any scientific papers alleging they do, and I cannot find 
examples anywhere showing that the moon affects the birthing 
patterns of animals or their mental stability. 

So why are 99% of research studies into the relationship 
between the moon and human biology looking exclusively at these 
two issues? What made scientists think that there was a relationship 
in the first place? Obviously, part of the blame lies with the Romans 
giving us the word "lunacy", which is derived from the word "luna", 
the moon, but besides this I cannot find any other examples outside 
popular fiction and the media. It is therefore not surprising that 
there has been no proof of a relationship between the dates of 
children being born and the lunar cycle, nor with criminal acts or 
mental lunacy. But why would there be? 


It is quite clear to me, having read many studies, that children 
are not born in cycles related to the full moon, nor are there any 
studies showing that madness is related to the full moon. One study 
looked at the survival rate of patients who had had breast cancer 
surgery, but no relationship with lunar cycles was reported. Another 
study looked at the relationship between lunar cycles and television 
viewing habits! And there is no tradition in any ancient text that 
talks about births on a lunar cycle. There are many goddesses who 
are named after the moon and are associated with fertility yet are not 
associated with the birth of the children, instead being more related 
to a child's conception. For some strange reason, scientists have 
chosen to ignore this important point. It is just an idea that seems 
to have appeared and cost untold millions of dollars in research 



grants for papers that serve no purpose. It is as if someone started a 
rumour and everyone is trying to dispel it, which of course they do 
every time; it is a big, red herring. 

One fact we should be looking for in research, based on the 
evidence from animals, is that of successful conception during 
a full moon. This is most evident in fish, who wait for the full 
moon to produce eggs that the male fish then cover. This has been 
observed time after time, yet it is not something that we have fully 
investigated in relation to humans. 

In ancient times, the goddess of fertility was also the goddess 
of the moon. In his authoritative work, Pliny the Elder, writing in 
ad 23, stated that conception is related to the full moon. Sadly, few 
contemporary studies have looked at this relationship so there are 
very few examples to back this up. One area in which there has been 
research is in IVF treatment, but as the sperm are not completely 
fresh and have been stored for a period of time, the results cannot, 
I believe, be considered completely reliable. Even with this problem 
of freezing the sperm, studies have concluded that "lunar influence 
may only be one of the contributing factors" to successful IVF 

In the case of spontaneous abortions, a team in Italy found 
that there was a link between the lunar phases and spontaneous 
abortions: "In the present paper, the correlation between the perigee 
extremes and the normalized number of spontaneous abortions is 
noteworthy. Moreover a periodicity of 205 days was apparent in 
the frequency of human spontaneous abortions which seems to be 
somehow correlated with the 206 day periodicity in extreme lunar 

But apart from these two studies, I could not find any information 
on the relationship between copulation based on the lunar cycle and 
its success rate. I found studies conducted on animals that showed 



a strong correlation, but none on humans. This is a shame as I 
believe it is one of the most important relationships that we have 
with the moon - successful fertilization when the woman's cycle is 
in harmony with the lunar cycle. 


I am not sure what happened in the 1970s, but there was an 
explosion of books describing the relationship between a woman's 
menstrual cycle and the lunar cycle. It seems that, during this period, 
there was a sudden interest in the topic. The book Astrological Birth 
Control was probably the catalyst in this new area of research. This 
book was based upon the approach of an unusual Eastern European 
doctor who announced that he had found a new method of birth 
control and sex selection. Dr Eugen Jonas from Czechoslovakia (as 
it was known then) alleged he had discovered astrological methods 
to produce the child the parents wanted based upon the position of 
the sun and the moon. 

For those who do not know much about a woman's periods, the 
following description is a basic summary of the process. The ovaries 
are the woman's sexual organs; they are where the ova - the eggs - 
are produced. At regular intervals, an egg moves from the ovary and 
into the oviduct (the fallopian tube), and then down into the uterus 
(the womb), where it attempts to settle in the mucous membrane 
that lines the uterus, which has become thickened to receive it. 
However, if the egg does not become fertilized and conception does 
not occur, the egg dies and, together with the thickened lining of the 
uterus, comes away as the menstrual flow. So common knowledge 
tells us that the woman needs to get pregnant during the period 
when the egg is in her uterus. Attempting pregnancy in this window 
is commonly referred to as the rhythm method. 

Jonas, on the other hand, made all sorts of different assumptions 



about the times at which it is possible to get pregnant and their 
relationship with birth dates and conception. He alleged if the 
woman was born on a full moon, then when she started to 
menstruate she would have her ovulation on the half moon and be 
most likely to conceive on the full moon. And if conception fell on 
a full moon, the birth would also occur on a full moon. According 
to Jonas, women have two completely independent rhythms of 
fertility: the phase of the moon and the women's monthly periods. 
As a consequence, he built up a programme that contradicted the 
rhythm method, showing that use of his birth calendar could have 
four different possible applications: contraception, sex selection, 
overcoming of sterility and reduction of fetal abnormality. He 
suggested that his method of creating a timetable based upon the 
moon and existing menstrual patterns could not only predict the sex 
of the baby, but also allow infertile women to have children and in 
addition reduce fetal abnormalities. But only, however, if the calendar was 
followed exactly. 

Jonas set up an institute in which he allegedly helped a lot of women 
in Czechoslovakia to fulfil one or more of the above objectives, but this 
institute ran foul of the government and he was banned from practising 
bis theories within his country. His ideas were pretty revolutionary at 
the time and indeed remain so today. But just because he was banned 
is no reason to dismiss all of his ideas. Is it possible to determine the 
sex of your child based upon lunar cycles, or to avoid sterility by having 
your period at a time that fits in with a lunar cycle? 

Dr Jonas thought so, and he provides lots of anecdotal evidence. 
He cites many different cases and peer endorsements for his ideas. 
However, science it is not, as he provides virtually no properly laid-out 
scientific study to support his beliefs. He talks all the time about a 98% 
success rate but does not give the number of people who succeeded. 
Later websites that quote from him look scientific but provide as little 



evidence as Jonas did himself - he was never published in a scientific 
journal. However, I was still intrigued to know whether anyone else had 
looked at this possibility to see if they could produce scientific evidence 
of a relationship between the moon and fertility. In doing so, I came up 
against much contradictory evidence, mostly showing that the concept 
that women have a regular period is completely unproven, and this in 
many ways completely undermines the concept of a lunar relationship. 

What I found surprised me enormously as it clearly showed that 
women do not have regular cycles. Most women consider themselves 
to be pretty regular, but the fact is that the majority of them aren't 
regular at all. Which probably explains why there is so much confusion 
amongst women who are never sure about the timing of their periods. 
It seems that the facts prove there is no such thing as a regular rhythm. 
Sorry to be sexist, but maybe it is because most scientists are male that 
this falsehood has been perpetuated to this day. I would put money on 
the fact that if this were a male issue, it would have been sorted out a 
long time ago, and everyone would be perfectly clear there is no such 
thing as all women having the same regular period, and certainly not 
one of twenty-eight days, even though some women do have a twenty- 
eight-day cycle. 

To quote from one authoritative study written in 1967 by the World 
Health Organization (WHO) and published in the International Journal 
of Fertility. 

1 There is no substantial justification for the widely held belief that 
women normally vary in menstrual interval about a value of 28 days 
common to all. Each woman has her own central trend and variation, 
both of which change with age. Assemblies of menstrual interval for 
many persons and covering a wide span of chronologic ages should, 
however, be expected to average within a few days of the often quoted 



2 Complete regularity in menstruation through extended time is a 
myth ... the only regularity in the menstrual cycle is its irregularity. 

3 Women apparently use the reply "regular" meaning "28 days" to 
indicate belief that they are normal in their menstrual characteristics. 

4 The first few years of menstrual life, like the last few, are marked 
usually by a variation in pattern of mixed short and long intervals 
with a characteristic transition into and out of the relatively more 
regular pattern of middle life. 

5 From our study of 22,754 calendar years of experience available 
for this study, the general trend reaches its minimum at 36 years 
of age. 

6 All menstrual histories show individualities that make the norms 
provided by statistical procedures useful only for comparisons of 
groups of persons. The characteristics of an individual menstrual 
history may alter with time and show fluctuating divergences 
from an average pattern. A woman's personal arrangement that 
may be influenced by her menstrual cyclicity may be made with 
greater probability of success the longer the guiding record of her 
past menstruations. 

The authors concluded that the practice of birth control through 
the use of rhythm methods alone had to introduce elements of such 
uncertainty as to pose serious problems for all persons affected. 
If women's periods were not regular, there obviously could not 
be a relationship between them and the lunar cycle, which is very 
regular. So the belief that women's periods are all related to the 
lunar cycle can be put aside as there is no evidence to support it. 



There is also no evidence that women's periods synergise when a 
group of women live together. This is a shame as I like that theory, 
but countless studies have been done that show there is no statistical 
relationship between the two. 

But, in concluding this subject, why do we assume that there 
should be a relationship just because they are very similar - 28 days 
against the 29.4 days of the lunar month? I like to turn to nature for 
ideas as to why there should be a relationship, and I cannot find any 
evidence here: there are no animals that show a lunar relationship in 
terms of their menstrual cycle. Every animal, it seems, is different. 


There are so many research studies showing unequivocally that the 
behaviour of animals is directly linked to lunar cycles that I will limit 
this section for fear of repeating myself too much. After a while, I 
think you will get the idea. 

I was not sure whether to put the following study under a human 
or an animal relationship heading as it could fall under both, but it 
has been shown there is a strong relationship between admissions 
to hospitals from animal bites and full moon days. In a study that 
looked at admissions of patients who attended an accident and 
emergency department in Bradford, a total of 1,621 patients were 
analysed. The results showed that there were 56 cat bites, 11 rat 
bites, 13 horse bites and 1,541 dog bites. The number of bites on each 
day was compared to the lunar phase in each month. It was shown 
that the incidence of animal bites rose significantly at the time of a full 
moon: the graph looked like the map of the Himalayas with a significant 
mountain peak occurring at the full moon. 

In another article that set out to disprove this relationship as complete 
nonsense, an Australian professor and his senior research officer analysed 
similar daily admissions to all accident and emergency departments in 






Admissions for dog bites 
Full Moon 

N V * V$ rfr \* * <£> "s?> \0 



Dog bites over a yearly period 

public hospitals in Australia. The title of their article title somewhat gave 
away their conclusion: "Barking mad? Another lunatic hypothesis bites 
the dust." They clearly found absolutely no relationship to the full moon 
and dog bites, as the above chart will show you. 

I would, however, just like to draw your attention to the numerous 
peaks that appear on this chart. Even if you know nothing about 
what is being shown, it is pretty clear that there is a cycle of peaks at 
a very similar time vvithin each month. The fact that they do not fall 
exactly on the full moon seems to be true, but it is pretty blinkered 
to say that there is no cycle whatsoever, as anyone who looks at 
this chart can easily see one. Just a quick glance will show that the 
peaks are regular and they occur at intervals approximating the 
mid-lunar period. 



Another obvious visual relationship that you can observe from 
the chart is that the lowest number of dog bites occurs each month 
around the full moon - another fact the authors have chosen to 
ignore. As this result is completely opposite to that of the previous 
study, which showed that the dog bites peaked at the full moon, 
is it just a mere coincidence that the first study was conducted 
in the northern hemisphere and the second one in the southern 
hemisphere? Would this situation not be likely to provide two sets of 
opposing lunar data? I believe the title of the Australian study should 
have read "Barking mad? Another lunar relationship proven." 
Yet again, science chooses the conclusion of least resistance, the 
easy answer, the one that might get more funding, rather than the 
challenging questions, the less popular ones, the ideas that might 
cause ripples. In this report, the authors stated that the results 
should allow "sceptics to rejoice", which is not helpful in a study of 
this land. 

A research project in 2004 looked at the success rate of horses 
in stud farms over a fourteen-year period to see if there was a 
pattern. Stud farm managers keep meticulous records, and horses 
are indeed the only animal for which complete and reliable records 
exist in terms of both conception and birth. The study found that 
there was a significant success rate just after the full moon, although 
the effect was reduced by lunar latitude, virtually disappearing at 
the "low node" points, the lunar nodes being the points where the 
moon's path in the sky crosses the ecliptic, the sun's path in the sky. 
So the results varied over the fourteen years, depending upon the 
relationship between the sun and the moon. 

A very early study, produced in i960 by three American 
researchers - Brown, Barnwell and Brett - looked at the mud snail. 
Under normal conditions, these mud snails would "travel west 
in early morning, at noon east and a westerly course in the early 



evening. At new and full moons the snails' paths veered to the west 
while at quarters of the moon they tended more eastward than at any 
other times." When the researchers placed a magnet under the exit 
to the snails' box, the snails made sharper turns, but their direction 
stayed the same. Turning the magnet or the enclosure through 
various angles made the snails' change course by a specific number 
of degrees. The same occurred in experiments with a worm, which 
showed exactly the same changes in behaviour when exposed to 
weak magnetic field disturbances. In all of these experiments, the 
animals displayed a relationship to that of the 24.8-hour lunar day. 

Even the hamster has been studied to see if it follows a lunar 
clock. In a study in 1985, two hamsters were kept in cages for nine 
months under low light conditions. They were found to follow a day 
that was 24 hours and 50 minutes in length - the lunar day. And 
who would have thought that the sweet old, cuddly cat is affected 
by the planet Mercury? Certainly not the doctors who conducted 
an experiment on cats in 1972. It was never their intention to see if 
there was a planetary relationship when they started their one-year 
study on changes in the thyroid gland of nineteen cats. They were 
in fact looking for a relationship based on sunshine, as previous 
research had shown a tentative relationship. It turned out that 
the cats' thyroid activity followed a complex rhythm of peaks and 
troughs occurring at nearly equal intervals that did not match at all 
with the sunshine data. 

Amazingly, the researchers also discovered the same pattern 
of peaks and troughs in mammals such as squirrels, sheep and 
humans. All of the peaks occurred in March, July and November, 
and the troughs in April, June and September. Notwithstanding 
this, they then went on to discover that the cycles also occur in 
fish, amphibians and reptiles. In fact, they discovered that in all 
four different vertebrate classes, there are annual rhythms of the 

J 33 


thyroid gland occurring at the same time of year. The only statistical 
relationship that made any sense was that of a relationship between 
the Earth, the sun and Mercury, but of course this was a problem 
as they did not understand any mechanism by which such a 
relationship could occur. How could the planetary effect of Mercury 
affect all of these species' thyroid gland? The authors concluded that 
"the relevance of this correlation is quite uncertain since there is no 
known causal mechanism by which the extremely subtle effects of 
Mercury could influence either cloud cover or thyroid activity. Thus 
it appears unlikely that the synchrony of the cats is dependent on 
any known environmental or astronomical event." So science yet 
again buries the facts when it does not understand them. 

This study is rarely quoted, probably because it was published 
in a biometeorological journal rather than a medical one. But the 
facts are important because if the thyroid gland, one of the most 
important glands in our body, is in a cycle of three times a year, 
surely this should be a factor incorporated into current medical 
thinking? The thyroid gland controls how the body uses energy 
and makes proteins and regulates the relationships between a 
range of hormones. Therefore, if all vertebrates have cycles of peaks 
and troughs of thyroid gland activity, this must mean that some 
physiological differences will occur during these peaks and troughs. 
Maybe our bodies' energy levels will be higher or lower, maybe our 
emotions will be affected by the change in hormones, who knows? 
But if this is the case, it would be good to know what to expect. The 
peaks are in March, July and November, so maybe we should be 
looking out for changes - whatever they might be - during these 
three months. 

J 34 



Salmon are probably the fish best known to have a very close 
relationship with the lunar cycle as they utilise high tides to lay 
eggs on specific days of the year. For example, on one beach in 
California, the fish have a spawning time in May. They wait until 
the tide reaches its peak on the third day after the full moon and 
allow themselves to be carried up on to the beach by the last, highest 
wave. There the females lay their eggs in the wet sand and the males 
fertilise them, and with the next wave they return again to the open 
sea. As they were brought in on the highest wave in the series, all 
the rest are smaller, and therefore the eggs are left on the beach 
and not swept out to sea by any new wave. Not until the fourteenth 
day later - half a moon cycle - does the tide again attain the height 
needed to reach the salmon spawn. The eggs hatch a few minutes 
before being washed out to sea, not to return to the shore until years 
later, fully grown, for one moment on this third day after full moon 
in May. For only one moment in the year are the sun, moon and 
Earth in the correct relative positions. 

The relationship between high tides and spawning is true 
for a majority of fish species. It seems that it is very common for 
fish to spawn on the high tides that follow each new or full moon. 
The relationship is always lunar and not tidal, which is shown by 
those fish that spawn even when there is no tide, and by fish that 
live in such deep waters that they have not only no access to tides, 
but also no access to the light from the moon, so it cannot be the 
moon's light that is making them behave this way. The advantage of 
synchronising spawning with the high tides is obvious as it means 
that the hatched young can be kept away from predators, enabling 
a greater survival rate, although which came first - the high tide or 
the lunar factor - is impossible to determine. It is a "fish and egg" 

J 35 


The Palolo worm 

Although not a 
fish, the palolo worm, 
which lives in the seas 
off the Pacific islands 
of Fiji and Samoa, is 
one of the best-known 
examples of a creature 
that takes the moon's 
phases as a signal 
to reproduce. Data 
recording exactly when 
this reproduction occurs go back as far as 1843. But wn Y would there 
be records for this worm as far back as that? It is because, during this 
reproductive period, the worms create the equivalent of free caviar 
for the local communities who fish for it. The islands become awash 
with this caviar, and the locals celebrate the event with public feasts. 
The missionaries made notes of these feast days in their diaries, 
providing excellent data for later scientists to analyse. 

The palolo have very strict behaviour patterns for when they 
swarm, which are directly related to the moon. Analysing the data 
starting from 1843, ^ can be shown that the worms follow an 18.6- 
year lunar cycle, and that on specific days of the monthly cycle 
swarming takes place, but only in October and November. This 
worm is the most studied of all animals that have an observable 
relationship with the lunar cycle, and it is undisputed that its 
behaviour has anything other than a lunar influence. 


I am sure you were not expecting metals in this chapter - the fact 
that there could be relationships caused by electromagnetism 
between metals and the moon, the sun and in fact all of the planets. 



Well, neither did I, but I have read some very interesting science 
experiments that show, through photography, the different effects 
that a total eclipse of the sun has on various different metals. 

In 1947, a scientist named Lilly Kolisko analysed the effect that 
a total eclipse of the sun had on solutions of gold, silver, copper, 
iron, lead and tin by using diluted amounts of these metals (as gold 
chloride, silver nitrate, copper sulphate, iron sulphate, tin chloride 
and lead nitrate). She placed drops of these on filter paper and 
watched as the patterns changed with the hours of the eclipse. There 
was a significant difference in the metal's behaviour, as visually 
shown on the filter paper, every hour during which the moon was 
blocking out the sun's rays. The best way to describe the image is 
by imagining a piece of paper onto which you have spilt some tea or 
coffee - the wet area spreads out, leaving behind a gradually fading 
amount of the coffee or tea, with a final line left at the point at which 
the coffee or tea reaches its maximum size. 

The different effects of the total eclipse of the sun in 1 947 on silver over a 1 hour period L. Kolisko 

If you were to reproduce this experiment with tea or coffee over 
and over again, you would be left with a similar pattern each time. 
But when you use metals, the pattern is somewhat different as the 
different metals leave behind an image that is like creating a cake 
- there are lots of different layers of different colours and widths. 
If you repeat the experiment on a non-eclipse day, the pattern that 
the metal creates from, say, a drop placed in the middle of the filter 
paper is pretty similar every time. However, on the day of an eclipse, 

J 37 


there is a very noticeable visual change in the pattern during each 
hour over which the experiment is conducted. When you look at the 
images shown in the table above, produced during a total eclipse of 
the sun in 1947, the patterns left by all of the silver metal solutions 
are completely different throughout the solar eclipse, only returning 
to a regular pattern at the end. 

If I were to guess which metal would react most to the effects 
of the planets, I am pretty sure I would not think the answer was 
silver. I know almost nothing about the uses of silver, but on further 
investigation I was reminded that it has regular functions when it is 
used in conjunction with light. Obviously, mirrors are a common usage 
of silver, as it has the amazing properly of reflecting light in a way that 
no other metal seems to be able to do, which is probably why it was used 
in photography to capture images before the advent of digital cameras. 
What is interesting though, for this chapter, is that tests conducted by 
Lilly Kolisko over fourteen years, using her filter paper experiments, 
show that the images involving silver changed in a daily pattern in 
relation to the moon. The full moon and the new moon have specific 
characteristics, and when she extended the studies over many years, 
she found that no two years were the same. 

In some ways, we can conclude that the images that Kolisko 
produced on the filter paper are photographic reproductions of the 
moon's effect, if we consider that photography uses silver and its 
relationship with light in a similar way. So if you are looking for a 
visual representation of the effect of the different lunar cycles, using 
silver appears to be the best method. I would be fascinated if someone 
were to publish daily images on the internet of the changes in silver 
so that it could confirm any sleeping pattern changes that I might or 
might not have had. It would also provide physical evidence that there 
is a direct relationship between the chemicals and electromagnetic 
forces emanating from the moon, sun and planets. But, as far as I was 



concerned when I saw them, these images clearly showed that, even 
in the 1940s, science was aware of a relationship between metals, the 
moon, the sun and the planets. 


It is probably less surprising to learn that plants react to the moon's 
electromagnetic forces. In a study conducted in 1973 by Brown and 
Chow, it was shown that "the rate of water uptake by bean seeds 
during the initial four hours displays a significant quarterly lunar 
variation". Also, "under what appear to be minimally disturbed 
environmental conditions relative to environmental electromagnetic 
fields, maximum rates of water uptake tend to occur close to new 
and full moon and the moon's quarters". 

This information is not, however, new: it has been known 
for thousands of years. One of the first people to write down the 
information for later historians to "discover" was Pliny the Elder, 
writing in ad 23 in his book Natural History. He refers to the 
relationship between the moon and plants in a matter-of-fact way, 
showing that it was common knowledge two thousand years ago. 
He cites many instructions for gathering plants and pruning or 
cutting trees according to the phases of the moon: 

Pliny's book discusses at length about the very strong 
relationship between the moon and the constellations, and much 
of his book on agriculture - four hundred pages out of a mere total 
of approximately four thousand pages - mentions this relationship. 
I could quote in detail all of the different names and dates it was 
necessary to know in order to maximise the yields from the crops, 
but that would become very boring. 

It was not until 1926 that there was further proof that a lunar 
relationship with plants existed. It was again Kolisko who conducted 
these experiments, which involved planting 11,520 wheat seeds over 

J 39 


a year. Her purpose was to see whether seeds planted at specific 
times of the month showed any noticeable growth differences, and 
if there were any, whether there was a direct relationship between 
the seeds and the moon's cycles. 

Kolisko's experiments involved sowing thirty seeds in eight 
glass vessels at the same time and planting them at the full moon. 
The seeds were taken out of the glass vessels after fourteen days and 
the resulting seedlings measured. This experiment was repeated 
with the seeds being placed in glass containers at three other lunar 
phases for fourteen days - at the new moon, the waning quarter and 
the waxing quarter - so 960 seeds in all were planted every month. 
In the first month of the experiments, Kolisko achieved remarkable 
results: the largest plants were achieved in the planting phase of the 
new moon to full moon (waxing), and the smallest in that from the 
full moon to new moon (waning). 

The second month, however, brought a corresponding 
disappointment: the growth had steadily decreased, something that 
at first Kolisko and her team could not understand. Had the moon's 
influence somehow changed? Was it just chance in the first month? 
But it occurred to them, following subsequent experiments, that the 
seasons also played a significant role in the plants' development. The 
initial experiment had taken place in October, and in the subsequent 
months of November and December the seeds' development had 
been stunted; this must have been due to the seasonal changes. 
In January, the positive growth re-emerged and the seeds began 
to show a growth cycle peaking with a maximum growth at the 
height of summer, all the time showing maximum and minimum 
relationships to the waxing and waning periods of the moon. 

What was of most interest, however, was the fact that the 
relationship to the moon changed during the year. At the beginning 
of the year, the plants' growth showed a favourable relationship to 



the waxing phase, the middle of the year tended towards the waning 
phase, and by the end of the year it was also a waning phase that 
gave better results. So the plants were following not a simple pattern 
but a variable one. It would have been very useful to see if there 
was a relationship every year - maybe if the experiment had been 
conducted over, say, a ten-year period, more valuable information 
could have been uncovered. 

When the experiments were taken out of the laboratory and 
conducted in the fields outside, there were similar results. The 
maize seeds that were used were planted two days before the full 
moon or two days later, on the full moon itself. Despite just two 
days' difference in the planting, the results were significantly 
different. The seeds planted two days before the full moon reached 
a height of 1.2 m, whereas those that were two days younger grew to 
only 80 cm. The yield also proved to be different, with a significant 
reduction for seeds sown on full moon. One other important result 
from planting in field soil was that the timing in relation to specific 
months was also very important. In this case, seeds sown too early 
grew less than seeds grown later, even though the latter were 
younger. Sowing the maize seeds in April was too early, and plants 
from seeds sown in May were the same size six weeks later as the 
ones sown in April. 

Exactly the same experiments were conducted with tomatoes, 
cabbage, peas, gherkins, radishes, beetroot, carrots, kohlrabi, 
celeriac, tarragon, pimpernel, asters, lovage, larkspur, cardoon, 
peppermint, sage, chamomile and thyme, and in all these examples 
there was a significant difference in the growth of plants from seeds 
planted two days before a full moon compared to two days before 
the new moon. 

The only factor that influenced the growth of the plants in these 
experiments was the amount of rainwater that was available. If no 



rainwater was available when the seeds were planted, this had an 
effect on the plants' relationship with the moon: if the ground was 
dry, Kolisko found that the moon's influence was reduced. The 
reason for this, she alleges, is because "the conducting medium 
which leads the moon's forces into the plants is lacking". Although 
this is not a scientific conclusion, it does tie up with my chapter on 
water and everything that I have been saying so far in this book. 
If everything vibrates and the moon's vibrations affect plants and 
other living organisms, it is the water within the plants that actually 
picks up the vibrations and retains them, and it is this retention 
of the vibrations that is the vehicle moving the vibrational change 
around the plant. In the case of humans, it would be the blood, 
which is mostly water, that moved the vibrations around the body. 
This is a really important point that changes many preconceptions 
related to the way living organisms behave. 


If you were looking to test a theory on living systems from which 
you could obtain records for many years providing a constant 
unchanging barometer on the effects of temperature, humidity, 
air pressure, sunlight, weather conditions, atmospheric potential 
gradient, cosmic rays and sunspot activity, what better subject 
would there be to choose than a tree? A tree's growth patterns over 
its lifetime can easily be measured by its tree rings, that is to say, the 
size by which the tree has grown each year, as shown by a clearly 
defined ring in the tree's trunk. 




Lawrence Edwards analysed the growth pattern of trees over a 
sixteen-year period and made a huge discovery. He showed that 
all trees have a specific growth relationship to the planets and the 
cycle of their movements past the Earth, and that trees grow in 
approximately fourteen-day cycles. Edwards' book The Vortex of Life 
was the first one I read when I was conducting my original research, 
and it was his scientific conclusions that opened my eyes to the 
possibility the science we have been taught can be very economical 
with the truth. 

Edwards conducted a series of very rigorous but simple 
experiments between 1982 and 1998 to assess whether or not trees 
grew in any particular cycle. In order to obtain his results, he set 
himself exacting standards. In order to measure the growth of the 
tree, he measured the leaf and flower buds of different species 
of trees and made sure each bud was from a specific number of 
branches, based on the fact that if a branch faced north or south 
it affected its growth pattern. So each tree had buds taken from 
south-facing branches on specific hours of the day over a sixteen- 
year period. These buds were individually photographed in the first 
few years, but Edwards subsequently used an electronic scanner to 
achieve his measurements quickly and more accurately - the buds 
were measured from these resulting images for both their length 
and diameter, the results then being analysed by computer. 

One of Edwards' major findings was a phase shift of the trees. 
This is a phenomenon that few people apparently acknowledge, yet 
it would seem to be of incredible significance. The basic premise 
is that trees grow out of sync with the planets on a yearly basis. For 
example, a beech tree will grow in a seven-day cycle in relation to the 
planet Saturn on a Monday to Monday cycle in the first year, but in 



the second year the cycle will follow a Tuesday to Tuesday pattern. 
This will continue for seven years forward and another seven years 
in reverse until, after fourteen years, the tree starts off again at the 
beginning with a Monday cycle. These results did not depend on the 
type of tree or its relationship with the planets; it affected all trees at 
all times irrespective of what was happening in the solar system in 
terms of specific planets. 

One maj or question that arises from this phenomenon is that if the 
trees grow following this seven-year cycle, yet there is no planetary 
cycle matching it, it could be easily concluded that the effect is likely 
to be coming from the Earth's magnetic influence on the trees. If 
this is the case, there is likely to be a strong relationship to other 
living organisms that are affected on a seven-year cycle, including 
ourselves. How this manifests itself has never been considered, 
but if it were included into data collection in long-term scientific 
experiments, I am sure there would be a strong correlation. 


Some people are so confident in the lunar and solar cycles that 
they are prepared to put massive amounts of money into gambling 
that specific crops will fail in certain years. As long ago as Roman 
times, people were making money from this "certainty". One story 
describes the Roman philosopher Democritus, who was allegedly 
the first person to recognise and point out the alliance that unites 
the heavens with the Earth, when he got into an argument with a 
wealthy citizen who despised his beliefs. Democritus decided to 
prove his point by betting on the price of olive oil, knowing that the 
following crop was going to fail and therefore the price of the oil 
would rise. He bought up all the spare oil in the country and when 
he had made vast amounts of profit, he gave the money back to 



the olive oil owners because he was more interested in proving his 
point than in making money. 

Fast-forward to today, and you will discover that there are Wall 
Street investors who bet on the crop failure cycle and make huge 
sums of money from it. This is based on the fact there is an 18.6- 
year lunar cycle. Evidence provided by Louis Thompson, using 
data from 1891 to 1983, showed there was a period of low US crop 
yields every 18-19 years and also a peak in yields every 18-19 years. 
This is a direct consequence of the moon's cycles. Other research, 
conducted in 1997, looked at both lunar cycles and solar cycles and 
showed there is a definite 22-year drought cycle associated with the 
sun that can be shown as far back as 1700, with a lunar 18.6-year 
cycle also being a definitively reported phenomenon. 

Several books have in fact been written on the relationship 
between financial investment and the lunar cycle. One such book 
suggests that there is a strong lunar cycle that affects stock returns. 
The authors discovered that returns in the fifteen days around 
the new moon were about double the returns in the fifteen days 
around the full moon. This pattern was found everywhere, in all 
major US stock indices over the last one hundred years, and in 
nearly all major stock indexes from twenty-four other countries 
over the last thirty years. The authors conclude by saying that this is 
evidence that lunar cycles affect human behaviour. 

Another financial research paper in 2005 stated that, having 
investigated the relationship between lunar phases and the stock 
market returns of forty-eight countries, a direct relationship could 
be seen. Stock returns were found to be lower around the full 
moon than on days around the new moon. The difference, which 
amounted to between 3% and 5%, appeared to be solely down to the 
lunar effect and could not be explained away by macroeconomic 
indicators or by any global shocks that might have taken place. The 



authors allege that the lunar effect was also independent of any 
calendar-related anomalies such as holidays or days of the week. 

Let's start investing then - it seems pretty easy if you just follow 
the lunar calendar. But hold on to your money for a moment because 
one Chinese financial analyst in 2008 investigated the relationship 
between lunar phases and stock market returns in China. He found 
that returns were lower on the days around a new moon than on the 
days around a full moon, and that this had happened for Chinese 
stocks over the previous sixteen years. He had no other conclusion 
than to state that lunar phases do affect stock returns in China. A 
paper in 2008 confirms this view but suggests that the US stock 
market has, since 1990, performed better on average around the 
new moons than full moons, and during waxing moons than 
waning moons. 

So you have been warned (although the data don't say how 
many people bet on the crop failures and made a mint!). I will leave 
it to budding investors to check for the next 18. 6 -year cycle and to 
determine when the failing or bumper harvest is to be expected and 
invest accordingly. Now that will be an interesting experiment. 


If you can make money, then who cares whether the science is right 
or wrong, crazy or sane? This is the approach that large organisations 
may take if they see a financial opportunity. Imagine you are a 
manager of a large organisation and someone comes to you with the 
idea that you can make money by producing your product on certain 
days of the week. In addition, you can only sell it on very specific 
days of the yearly calendar. And the reason for this commercial 
insanity is because the moon affects your product. I do not believe 
that, in the first instance, anyone in their right mind would consider 
this to be a basis for altering any marketing or production ideas. 



Yet it is. There is a multibillion-dollar industry that chooses to 
produce goods based around a moon calendar and sell them only 
on specific days of the month. And what crazy industry is this? It's 
the wine industry. I am sure you did not know that the taste of wine 
apparently changes by the day and even the hour, and two of the 
largest wine retailers in the UK, which between them sell a third 
of all the country's wine, only invite critics to taste their ranges on 
dates that are determined by a biodynamic farming calendar that 
maps the lunar cycle. 

A little book has been published for the past forty-eight years by 
a German woman named Maria Thun which provides the data for 
biodynamic farmers; it contains a yearly calendar telling them when 
certain fruits, including red grapes, are at their best. It suggests that 
as red wine contains a lot of living bacteria, the consumer should 
drink the wine only on specific days and hours as it will taste much 
better. In fact, the wine might even taste downright horrible if you 
happen to drink it on the wrong lunar day. As an example, during 
June 2009, the only days to drink wine were from 9 pm on June 3rd 
to 2 am on June 6th, 10 am on the 8th to 3 am on the nth, 2 pm on 
the 13th to 1 pm on the 15th, 2 pm on the 18th to 5 am on the 20th, 
7 pm on the 21st to 7 pm on the 22nd, and 10 pm on the 25th to 9 
am on the 28th, a total of approximately 13 days. For the rest of the 
time, you should remain abstinent if you want to get the most from 
your wine appreciation. 

In an article in the Guardian newspaper from 18th April 2009, 
Jo Ahearne, wine buyer for Marks and Spencer, became convinced 
of the theory when she sampled more than one hundred and forty 
wines over two days - all one hundred and forty on the first day, and 
then exactly the same wines on the following day: "Before the tasting 
I was really unconvinced, but the difference between the days was 
so obvious I was completely blown away. They were like chalk and 



cheese. The difference was staggering, on the second day the wines 
were all wrong, deadened and hard and bitter, almost corked." 

Wine journalist, Victoria Moore, a wine critic and author of How 
to Drink, heard about Marks and Spencer's idea and at first thought 
it was lunacy. But after she went back through her diary and marked 
off the days when she thought the tastings had been generally poor 
and compared them with the calendar, she was amazed to find that 
they indeed matched up. 


Russian scientists have never had a problem with the relationship 
between the sun, the moon and our biological make-up as they 
have been analysing it for more than fifty years. Sochi on the 
Black Sea is a Russian resort famous for its health sanatoriums. 
In 1957-1958, around the peak of a sunspot cycle, Russian doctors 
noticed that something odd was happening to their patients' blood. 
There appeared to be an abnormal increase in lymphocytes. They 

found an almost perfect 
parallel between the 
percentage of blood 
lymphocytes as measured 
by haematologists and 
the sunspot frequency 
recorded by astronomers. 
The sun was influencing 
people's blood! 

In Japan, a famous 
haematologist, Maki 
Takata, had also recognised 
sunspots and soiarfiares this effect. As early as 1939, 



when measuring the coagulation rate of blood albumin, he was 
suddenly aware of a problem when all of the hospital's reported 
coagulations (clotting) occurred more quickly than normal. What 
Takata discovered was that speed of the reaction rose as the 
frequency of sunspots increased. He also found that the only thing 
that could prevent the sun affecting the blood was the moon, when 
it stood right in front of the sun blocking out the sun's rays during 
a total eclipse. This fact has been further confirmed by Russian 
scientists in 2004 who looked at the years 1993, 1994, 2001 and 
2002 and found that the level of lymphocytes in animals during 
these periods varied with the solar activity. 

Other studies have confirmed that the sun affects the rate at 
which human blood coagulates. One scientist actually tested her 
own blood coagulation levels in Venice in three different locations 
and found that they varied depending upon the building she was in 
when she conducted the test. One place was the catacombs, where 
coagulation took nine minutes, and another was her laboratory 
building, where it took only three. Not only was the location a 
factor, but so too was the time of day when she ran the tests. In her 
laboratory, the blood took three minutes to coagulate in the 9 am 
test, but only two minutes in the 2 pm one. 


Don't drive on high sunspot activity days as you are more likely 
to be involved in an automobile accident. In a study conducted in 
2009, six scientists in Israel and Russia analysed the most severe 
traffic accidents, which had caused 7,588 deaths and 1,647 severe 
injuries between the years 2000 and 2005 in the Grand Baku area 
of Azerbaijan. This period was chosen as it fell during the maximum 
and declining phases of the twenty-two-year solar cycle. What the 
researchers discovered was that the number of traffic accidents that 



occurred in a given month was related to the solar and cosmic ray 
activity. Increases in traffic accidents were also significantly affected 
by geomagnetic disturbances. The only conclusion these scientists 
could draw was that changes in the "space weather" might have had 
a negative impact on human health and, through the influence of 
geomagnetic disturbances, on the "human brain's functional state 
and behaviour". 

This statistical research does not exist in isolation as other 
studies have also come to the same conclusion. As long ago as 1955, 
a German researcher reported that traffic accidents were more 
frequent when there were changes in the geomagnetic field. He 
also went on to analyse why this might be so and found, in studies 
on human reaction times, that reaction times were much slower 
during periods of disturbed geomagnetic activity. This fact was also 
confirmed by two other researchers five years later. 

If a correlation was found fifty years ago, why are we still 
conducting research five decades later? Was it not proved then? 
There are, in fact, investigations originating from Russia, Germany, 
Hungary, Japan, Poland, Israel and Lithuania that have all shown 
correlations between different levels of solar activity, geomagnetic 
activity and an increased number of traffic accidents for both 
developed and developing countries. 

Other large studies have looked at the effects of geomagnetic 
storms on human biological systems and have come up with similar 
results. In fact, it appears to be the severity of the electrical storm 
that is of importance as mild storms seem to have limited effects on 
the brain's bioelectrical activity. However, severe storms: 

create negative influences, seriously disintegrate the brain's 
functionality, activate braking processes and amplify the 
negative emotional background of an individual. 



The conclusion in this particular study was that these disturbances 
affected humans' physical and emotional states but did not affect 
individuals' personalities. 


Professor Georgio Piccardi, Director of the Institute of Physical 
Chemistry, Florence, whom we met in Chapter 2, set about looking 
at whether or not there was a chemical relationship between the 
sun and human biology. He called this form of study "medical 
climatology". Writing as long ago as 1962, he sought to prove that 
changes in the climate altered chemical reactions and therefore had 
a direct effect on our biology. In order to do this, he set up a number 
of experiments over a ten-year period that proved beyond any doubt 
the existence of a direct correlation between changes in solar activity 
and chemical reactions. 

During the period between 1951 and i960, Piccardi's team 
conducted four tests repeatedly three times a day, totalling a 
staggering 257,442 different tests - a nine-and-a-half-year period of 
experiments. Tests were conducted every day, including holidays, 
in Brussels, Vienna and Florence. This man really was a dedicated 
scientist. The chemical experiments involved such things as the 
"precipitation and sedimentation of oxychloride of bismuth" and 
the "polymerisation of acrylonitrile", and the results showed an 
almost exact relationship with solar activity. Not only did Piccardi 
find a regular annual rhythm in which the minimum chemical 
reactions took place during March and August, but his conclusions 
were also unquestionable: there was a direct relationship between 
chemical changes and the movement of the Earth. 

This study was one of the most thorough ever undertaken 
looking at phenomena thought to be caused by the sun, and 
Piccardi ascertained that the sun is, by chemical means, affecting 



our "colloidal systems in evolution" and consequently our biological 
systems . H e found that, in every year, the reaction varied even though 
it was a standard chemical procedure that should have produced 
very similar results, just as tossing a coin one million times should 
produce a very clear 50/50 result. If, however, in one year there is 
a 60/40 result and in another year a 47/53 result, something else 
outside the normal arena must be going on to interfere with this. 
In the case of the coin toss, there is no logical explanation for why it 
should not average out at 50/50 as long as it is exactly the same coin 
being tossed in exactly the same way. Piccardi's is probably the most 
convincing research project ever undertaken, proving that there 
is a chemical and thus a biological effect on our bodies. But still 
this research seems to have been completely forgotten. How could 
scientists ignore the weight of 257,442 experiments? 


In an authoritative paper, two Canadian scientists analysed patterns 
of bacteria and the way in which the time of day affected the number 
of bacteria within the human body. They did not, of course, look at 
any lunar relationship, as that would have been scientific suicide, but 
they did acknowledge that there was a definite pattern. For instance, 
are any of us aware that when we get a cold, this actually peaks at 
4.00 pm? If we have a fever as a result of a bacterial infection, the 
fever is worse in the evening, compared with a viral infection, in 
which the fever is worse in the morning. We are never told to take 
our medication at a specific time of the day depending upon our 
illness, but don't you think it would be best to take our medication 
when our fever is at its lowest so that our body has enough energy to 
fight off the bacteria? - so if we have a bacterial infection, we should 
take our medication in the afternoon or at night. 

Scary as it might seem, an experiment infecting mice with E. coli 



bacteria showed that 20% of them died when they were given the 
bacteria in the middle of the day, but 80% of them died when they 
received the bacteria at night. In order to see if this was the same 
in humans, tests were conducted giving Salmonella to volunteers 
(I hope they got paid a lot of money). The results showed that the 
volunteers who were given Salmonella in the evening showed twice 
the increase in body temperature and plasma levels of the hormones 
ACTH and Cortisol (which are produced in greater quantities when 
the body is stressed) than those who were given it twelve hours 

For obvious reasons, many more studies have been conducted 
on animals than humans. All of the animal studies show that the 
time of day is very important for the body's behaviour, particularly 
in relation to the number of bacteria within the body. In one of 
the few studies on humans, it has been shown that an injection 
of hepatitis B vaccine that was given in the afternoon produced a 
significantly higher number of antibodies than a similar vaccine 
given in the morning. So the next time I need a vaccination to travel 
abroad, I will definitely make an appointment to have the injection 
in the afternoon so that I'll get double my money's worth compared 
with having it in the morning. 

While I am writing this, I am wondering which part of our body 
contains the most bacteria, and where in my body am I most likely 
to be affected on a daily basis by such changes in bacterial levels. To 
me, it is obviously the gastrointestinal tract, which contains billions 
of different bacteria, part of whose purpose is to break down our 
food. Now if the number of bacteria varies throughout the day, 
surely we should eat more when our bacteria are active than when 
they are less active? This sounds like excellent advice; it's just a 
shame that I can't find any research investigating it. And I haven't 
been able to find such advice in any food literature - "eat me only 

J 53 


in the afternoon because I will be digested more efficiently" is not 
a recommendation that advertisers seem to have used. Maybe they 
should, but if the science showed that it was better to eat breakfast 
cereal in the afternoon rather than the morning, this would be a big 
problem for the breakfast cereal industry! 

One study into stomach ulcers, which are associated with the 
bacterium Helicobacter pylori, backs up this timing issue. Three 
doctors analysed the incidence of ulcer perforation in 1,480 patients 
in Norway between 1935 and 1990 to identify any daily, weekly and 
yearly time effects of ulcers. However, the researchers found even 
more detailed information whereby they showed a relationship with 
not only the time of the day, week and year, but also the age and sex 
of the patient. We are all very different, it appears: men's, women's 
and children's stomachs all behave differently. But duodenal 
perforations showed the highest incidence in the afternoon, 
while gastric perforations showed a major peak around noon and 
a secondary peak near midnight. The duodenal ulcer perforation 
showed a six-month rhythm with a significantly higher incidence in 
May, June and July, and in November and December. 

It would be even more complicated to discover that bacterial 
levels are based not on a solar relationship but a lunar one, so that 
our body's bacterial levels would change with the moon on a 24.84- 
hour day - our bacterial levels would be different in the morning 
in any one week compared with the next. You would need to have 
a tidal calendar to eat efficiently. But no studies have been done in 
this area to see if there are 24-hour relationships - solar ones - or 
24.84-hour relationships - lunar ones - let alone to see whether 
such relationships exist at all. And not only do we have to look at the 
daily level of changes, but experiments on mice have suggested that 
there are significant seasonal as well as daily changes. This would 
mean that if you were taking medication over a long period, you 

J 54 


would have to consider not only the time of day, but also the month 
- winter drugs would need to be different from summer drugs. 

An authoritative study into the area of daily changes in bacteria 
written in 2007 concluded sadly with the words "the delivery of 
antibiotics and its low level effectiveness at night for targeted tissues 
and organs seems worthy of exploration". Why is it taking so long to 
look at this area of research? In this case, possibly because it will cost 
drug companies a lot of money to learn that some of their drugs are 
only half as useful when delivered at specific hours of the day, and 
it might not be in their best interests to develop this area of research 
further. But we should know about it, our health authorities should 
know about it, and all governments should save themselves billions 
of pounds by utilising this simple piece of advice. Giving certain 
drugs in the afternoon could be more than twice as efficient as 
giving them in the morning, and therefore you could take them half 
as often, which could dramatically cut the cost of some medications. 
Hallelujah! I have just saved the UK's National Health Service 
(NHS) a fortune. Maybe I should send them a bill. 

J 55 




Introduction To 


- What's the attraction all about? 

J 57 


What do you know about magnets and 
electromagnetics? For most people, the answer is 
likely to be: not a lot. You probably know two facts 
about magnets: that they attract and repel each 
other, and that they have a north and a south pole. But besides these 
two small observations, most people don't know anything else - 
how they are made and what specific uses they have, for example. 

Magnets are everywhere. They are used in audio products, video 
and computer technology, telecommunications, automotive sensors, 
electric motors, medical imaging, energy supply and transportation 

as well as stealth airplanes. 
If magnets have been 
utilised so well in every 
field of science, could there 
be a case for their also 
being involved with living 
organisms? If you were to 
believe a lot of scientists, 
there isn't any use for 
magnets in health-related 
issues; this is often referred 
to as "quackery science". 

A typical horse shoe magnet 

But this view is a real shame 
- it did not take me very long in my research to uncover a good deal 
of evidence showing that, far from being passive players, magnets 
and electromagnets can play both a beneficial and a damaging role 
in living organisms. 

The difference between an electromagnetic field and a magnetic 
field lies in the fact that an electromagnetic field emits an additional 
electrical field as well as a magnetic field. Electromagnetic fields 
are all around us, whereas magnets are either found in naturally 

i 5 8 


occurring iron outcrops or are made artificially by wrapping a 
coil of iron with metal and passing an electric current through 
it. An electromagnetic field is the same as an electromagnetic 
vibration; they are two ways of saying the same thing. We are all 
surrounded by natural and artificial electromagnetic fields. The 
electromagnetic properties of the atmosphere are derived from 
waves emanating from radioactivity at the Earth's surface, cosmic 
radiation, ultraviolet solar radiation, power lines, radio stations, 
nuclear facilities and wi-fi masts, to name but a few. Many studies 
have equated electromagnetics to changes in our behaviour such as 
anxiety, irritability, restlessness, depression, insomnia, fatigue and 

The Earth's magnetic fields 

Are there any magnetic fields to which our bodies react that are 
so fundamental to our organism's ability to survive that we take 
them for granted? Do we have our own north and south pole; are 
we ourselves magnets? Is the planet we live on a magnet? If you 
think about those three questions in isolation, we know that the 

J 59 


Earth must be a big magnet because of the properties of a compass. 
We also know it has a North and a South Pole. Everyone knows 
this, but we seem to forget we know it. We are standing on a big 
magnetic lump called Earth. Surely we are being affected by its 
electromagnetic field, and, if so, it follows that we must have a north 
and south pole within our biological make-up. 

This idea, however, raises many questions for which I do not 
have any answers. If I were to stand on a long magnetised metal 
bar with one end being south and the other being north, would my 
internal north and south pole be affected? If so, how would I know? 
Would it mean that my feet became south, and my head north? I 
have not had any scientific education that allows me to work out the 
answer to this issue. Maybe the answer is simply that the magnetic 
bar has no influence on my biochemistry. 

But can I, with my hand on my heart, say conversely that 
magnetic forces are not likely to have any effect on my body at all? In 
order to find the answer to this question, I had to work out a logical 
theory. Was there an issue that could answer this simply once and 
for all? A question that occurred to me was this: what would happen 
if I swallowed several magnets? How would this affect me? If the 
magnets directly affected my body, this would prove that magnets 
have a direct biological effect. My instinct was to assume that this 
would be true, for no other reason than it just seemed to be obvious. 
How and why, I did not know, but I felt pretty sure there was a 
strong possibility that swallowing magnets would not be a healthy 
idea. And, not surprisingly, I found medical studies that provided 
me with an answer showing I was right. 

So who in their right mind do you think would swallow magnets 
so that a study could be created? Children, of course. They love 
swallowing bits of everything. Several studies published in the 
Journal of Paediatric Surgery have shown that children can suffer 



terrible effects on their gastrointestinal tract from swallowing 
magnets; these magnets caused "perforations, adhesions and 
fistula formation". Ingestion for as little as five hours seems to 
cause severe internal problems, even though the magnets showed 
no signs of corrosion when they were extracted surgically.. 

These swallowed magnets seem to produce an incredibly fast 
toxic reaction, but I could not discover from my research how this 
works biologically. So yet again we have to go with the observational 
facts that magnets can cause a direct effect on our biological make- 
up if swallowed. However, the magnets do not affect everyone who 
swallows them: many children can swallow a magnet and have 
no side effects. So it must be something within those particular 
children that is different. 

The research into internal damage caused by swallowing 
magnets proves that there is something about the properties of 
magnetism that causes a direct biological change. I would go so 
far as to argue that every living organism is affected by magnetism. 
If the world in which we live has, since the day of evolution, 
been bombarded with magnetic forces, all life forms will have 
developed in harmony with these. But if, for any strange reason, 
the electromagnetic forces changed, this natural harmony would be 
altered, causing a biological change. Exactly what this might be was 
what I hoped to discover in the scientific journals. Sadly, there was 
very little scientific research in this field, and what there was, was 

In an editorial in the British Medical Journal in 2005, written 
by Professors Finegold and Flamm, the title "Magnet therapy: 
extraordinary claims, but no proven benefit" sums up the way 
in which the medical profession views this area of science. This 
editorial was on page four of one of the most influential scientific 
journals in Britain. The problem I have in this instance with the 



British Medical Journal and the authors of the article is that they seem 
to rejoice in a collective attack against the possibility that there could 
be any scientific principle behind the use of magnets. They conclude 
by saying "theoretically magnet therapy seems unrealistic". Why do 
they have such a problem with it theoretically? Where is the science 
for this? How can they state that "patients should be advised that 
magnet therapy has no proven benefits"? I find it very depressing that 
this type of preaching, with the full support of the medical media, does 
not take the time to assess all of the evidence before it starts attacking 
some fundamental principles of science. Do these two professors not 
know that magnets are used daily in hospitals to treat the non-union of 
bones? If magnets do not work and have no proven benefits, why are 
they helping hundreds of thousands of patients every year in hospitals 
throughout the world in bone-healing treatments? 

What is even more dispiriting is the fact that, only a few months 
previously, the very same magazine had published an article by six 
scientists, including Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary 
Medicine, who had found "evidence of a beneficial effect of magnetic 
bracelets on the pain of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee". Their 
findings, they say, were consistent with previous studies on magnetic 
therapies and pain: "the benefit from magnetic bracelets seems clinically 
useful". What was interesting in their conclusion was the fact that they 
found no positive results in the studies that used weak magnets, but 
there were positive effects in those studies that used strong magnets - 
therefore, the strength of the magnets was important. This study, along 
with all of the others in a similar vein, should have shown that magnetic 
treatment works and opened the forum for further research. Yet only 
a few months later, in the same publication, two other professors 
dismissed this study as mere nonsense. What hope is there for any 
proven science to be accepted as fact in the medical establishments if it 
is up against old-fashioned dogma? 



So how can we prove whether magnetism has an effect on our 
biological make-up other than by swallowing a magnet? Incredibly, the 
subject was dealt with over fifty years ago, to the extent that I find it 
ridiculous that it is even necessary to write this chapter. But it appears 
that scientists do not believe the findings even though, every day of the 
week, they can just look up into the sky and know that the astronauts 
sitting in the space station are living proof that we are affected by 

If you are old enough to 
remember the early launches 
of the Apollo spacecraft bade 
in the 1960s, you will recall 
that, as soon as the astronaut 
landed in the water, he was 
helped out of the space 
module and almost lifted into 
transport that whisked him 

away tO an isolation Ward for Astronauts space suits have magnets built into them 

several weeks in order for his 

body to recover. Today the reusable spacecraft lands on a runway like 
an aeroplane and the astronauts walk out of the craft as if they had been 
the pilots of a standard aeroplane, and proceed immediately to a press 
conference, showing no side effects from their space travel. 

What has happened over the past fifty years to allow this difference? 
Initially, the astronauts had to be assessed medically after returning 
home from space. It was found, on inspection, that they were 
losing bone density and calcium, and that their immune system 
was functioning poorly, hence the need for immediate short-term 
isolation from bacteria and viruses. And what did NASA do to solve 
this problem? It stole ideas from the Russians. The Russians had 
already successfully put astronauts into space for long periods of 



time. The Salyut 6 space laboratory had housed astronauts in space 
for two hundred and eleven consecutive days, and they had shown 
no signs of health issues on returning back to earth. NASA had to 
find a way to compete with the Russians, who were at this time its 
arch rivals. How could NASA maintain the astronauts' bones and 
immune systems while in space? 

The reason the Russians discovered the solution long before 
the Americans can simply be found in the way the Russians 
investigate medical change and how they write up their research 
papers. The Russians have been more open to new ideas. They had 
been investigating the use of electromagnetic forces in nature for 
the previous thirty years and had developed an established science 
related to these phenomena. It was only in the 1960s, when America 
was concerned by the scientific discoveries that were being made 
within Russia, that its scientists began to translate Russian scientific 
papers to see if they could learn anything from them. 

The Russians realised that the only difference the astronauts 
were experiencing was related to the gravitational field in space, 
which was very small compared with that of the Earth. In order 
to provide an environment that was stable for the astronauts, they 
had to artificially create the same magnetic fields in space as the 
astronauts were used to on Earth. The solution was simple: they 
put magnets in the spacecraft. Initially, these were very heavy, so 
they developed lightweight but very strong magnets within both 
the spaceship and the astronauts' spacesuits. These completely 
counteracted the previous absence of a magnetic field. How NASA 
eventually came to the same conclusions nobody knows. 

So NASA has agreed that there is a direct effect of the Earth's 
magnetic waves on our biology. But if this is so, why don't doctors 
acknowledge it too? It seems to be obvious. If NASA is fully aware 
that the Earth's magnetic field is important when you do not have 



enough of it, surely the same would be true if you had too much 
of it. Our bodies have a natural equilibrium, and any change in 
the balance will have a biological effect. It appears, based upon the 
findings from the astronauts, that if you want to reduce the amount 
of calcium (found largely in the bones) or the bone density in the 
body, stick a patient in a sealed room that blocks out any magnetic 
input. On the other hand, if you want to increase bone density, apply 
extra magnets to the patient. It must also follow that subjecting 
the body to additional magnetic forces will increase the amount of 
calcium that is taken up in the bones, and if the magnets are placed 
locally over a specific bone, it is logical that more calcium will be 
produced and that bone will heal more quickly. This is, however, 
my own interpretation of the science that I have researched; I have 
not read this statement as such anywhere, but it seems to be the 
logical conclusion from what NASA has proven. 

Would it also follow, therefore, that increased magnetic forces 
would also improve the body's immune system? This may not be as 
straightforward as the calcium concept, as the immune system is a 
very delicate balance of many different cells, organs and hormones. 
It is not the same as saying that fewer or weaker magnetic forces 
reduce the immune system and stronger magnetic forces increase 
it. We know that a reduction or an increase in hormone levels to 
beyond the normal range has an immediate effect, usually negative. 
I would argue, therefore, that any level outside the normal level 
of magnetic forces would similarly undermine the balance of 
the immune system and push our bodies out of equilibrium, 
destabilising them. 

This brings us back to the idea that all the electromagnetic waves 
we are generating through technology, such as electrical currents, 
wi-fi signals, mobile phones, satellite television and so on must be 
affecting our immune systems, just as the astronauts suffered. We 



are all reacting to being blasted by too many electromagnetic waves, 
but in a slower and more drawn-out process. This correlates with 
the rapid increases in immune-related illnesses worldwide, such as 
hay fever, chronic fatigue and diabetes. Most scientists dismiss this 
as impossible, yet they do nothing about it, maybe because there are 
no pills available that are a cure for these immune-related problems. 
You can read pages of scientific evidence that develop this line of 
enquiry in Chapter 6, on how technology is killing us. 

Maybe someone in authority will one day write about NASA and 
its use of magnets and show the scientific community that, far from 
there being no scientific basis for the effects of magnets, there is an 
overwhelming scientific case to support this. But as this hasn't yet 
been done in the fifty years since the launch of the Apollo spaceship 
programme, I am not exactly holding my breath. 

And the Russian and NASA discoveries are not even new. 
Ancient Greek, Egyptian and Roman civilisations were all aware of 
the concept and powers of magnetism. In fact, the Chinese were 
the first to develop any benefits from it when they discovered the 
magnetic compass. The Chinese writings of Gui Guzi and Han 
Fei (280-233 bc) showed that the orientation of natural lodestone 
towards the earth's geographical poles had been known for a very 
long time. What is a lodestone? A lodestone is a naturally occurring 
magnetic rock made from iron ore, commonly referred to as 
magnetite. It can be mined or picked up in surface outcrops. This 
substance was revered in ancient Crete, in the palace of Knossos 
(2000-1300 bc), where the throne room of Minos is paved in the 
centre with a rectangular flagstone made of iron oxide, consisting 
mainly of magnetite. 

So magnetism is not a new phenomenon to the world - just to 
Western civilisation. Do you know when we in the West first discovered 
magnetism? As recently as 1269, from the knowledge of Pierre Pelerin 



de Maricourt, as revealed in a letter in which he introduced the concept 
of magnetic poles. But it took another 400 years until an English 
physician and physicist, William Gilbert, wrote a book - De Magrwte- in 
1600 - in which this concept was brought to a wider public. It was said 
that Galileo was so impressed by it that he took up Gilbert's thoughts 
on magnetism. 

It took around 2,000 years from the Chinese discovery of the 
compass for it to be used in navigation in the West, allegedly by Marco 
Polo in 12 95 after he had visited China. This meant the Chinese had had 
a long time during which they could make discoveries on the possible 
healing properties of magnets. Surely then, some of our scientists 
should investigate the idea that the Chinese might have discovered 
evidence for magnetic treatment. Is it not likely that an ancient 
civilisation that made many major discoveries also spent a long time 
analysing human biological functioning? Maybe this ancient science 
should not be dismissed as being alternative or complementary science 
- maybe it is our Western science that should be called alternative! 

I discovered that there was a good deal of ancient knowledge on the 
healing properties of magnets. Gilbert, writing in 1600, refers to the 
medical benefits of magnets and takes advice from ancient traditions, 
particularly those of the "Arabic writers" who used magnets for treating 
the liver and spleen. Even in that early period, Gilbert was writing "for it 
is beneficial in many diseases of the human system and by its virtues, 
both natural and acquired through fit and skilful preparation, it brings 
about wonderful changes in the human body". In one quote from his 
book, Gilbert refers to someone from Greece by the name of Platea, 
who discovered that magnets are "principally of use to the wounded". 
Maybe the science of treating bone healing with magnetism was 
discovered thousands of years before we rediscovered it in the West - 
as recently as the 1980s. 

Science has certainly not forgotten about magnets. I stated at 



the start of the chapter that 
they are used in virtually 
every part of our modern 
life. In fact, all hospitals 
contain machines that 
utilise magnets, such as 
the MRI scanners that 

An MRI scanner - a giant magnet 

create three-dimensional 
images of your body - they 
are in essence one huge 
magnet, maybe big enough 

to affect other things in the surrounding rooms or even buildings. 
I wonder if anyone has gone around hospitals with a compass to 
see how magnetised the hospitals have become by their use of 
these machines. They could in fact be having a negative effect on 
the health of all of the hospital's patients. This highlights the need 
for science to complete research into the effect of magnets. What a 
sad irony that would be - that a machine that is supposed to help 
patients might in fact be doing the complete opposite. 

Hundreds of scientific papers have investigated the effect of 
magnets of varying strengths on different ailments ranging from 
arthritis and ankle sprains through to urinary problems and wound 
healing. In almost all of the studies, the effect of magnets has been 
positive. I could write pages and pages on the successful studies 
that have been done, but it would be very repetitive; after the first 
few pages, you would get the idea - magnets have a strong effect on 
our bodies. So yet again I am going to ask the question, if they are 
so effective, why do we not use them in our everyday life? I believe 
there are three reasons for this: first, of course, is the unwillingness 
of Western medicine to take on board anything that is not drug- 
based; second is that you cannot patent a magnet, so there is very 



little profit incentive for companies to develop this area of research; 
and third is the fact that so many sellers of magnets of different 
shapes, sizes and strengths make false medical claims. It seems 
that anyone selling a magnet can now state that it will cure almost 
anything. This is not, however, true and has helped to provide 
ammunition for those people who want to dismiss this area of 
science as quackery. 

One paper, published in 2009, assessed the work of all the 
scientists who had previously conducted experiments into the 
effect of magnetic fields. It was highly dismissive of those who 
had conducted the experiments and found that only two out of fifty 
studies were actually fully compliant with scientific criteria. This 
study showed that many scientists really do not understand the 
ideas behind the experiments and use one strength of magnets to 
justify that "all magnets" work or don't work. It is not scientific to 
compare a magnet with a strength of 100 Gs (Gauss) with one of 
10,000 Gs. So only around 4% of the recently published clinical 
studies properly reported the protocol of the study - no wonder 
some scientists call the results controversial. Maybe it is time that 
we called the scientists themselves controversial, as well as their 

Bone healing is another example of confusion within medical 
ideology. It was shown a long time ago that the use of magnets 
can help to heal bones. This technique is used in some hospitals 
as a matter of course, but in others only as a last resort, when other 
treatments have failed. Now this strikes me as peculiar as it typifies 
the fear and ignorance that doctors have of different forms of 
science that might not necessarily be in their textbooks. How is it, 
when so many studies have shown this approach to work, that some 
doctors embrace this science whereas others still don't? 

A broken bone is pretty simple; you know when it is broken, and 



you know when it has healed. There are standard lengths of time 
that it takes for most bones to heal, and if you apply magnets to bone 
that has been broken, it will heal more quickly. Scientific studies in 
the 1980s had remarkable results with the use of electromagnetic 
fields on bone fractures, with a success rate of 90% in adult 
patients. In fractures that had failed to heal four months after bone 
grafting, the success rate was 99%. The surgically non-invasive 
outpatient method that was approved by the American Food and 
Drug Administration in the 1980s produced confirmed end results 
for 1,007 non-united fractures; it had an international success rate 
of 79%, with a reported success rate in the USA of 76%. 

In a study in 2008 on the effect that magnets have on healing 
wounds in rats, it was found that the magnet group healed in an 
average of 15.3 days, whereas the sham (fake treatment) and control 
(standard treatment) groups took 20.9 and 20.3 days respectively. 
This report stated that there was a paucity of scientific research into 
this field in humans. Other research in China in 2009 into deep 
wound healing in rats confirmed the results. Is it possible that the 
use of magnets could have the same effect on humans as on rats? 
Maybe, but as magnets have not been approved as a treatment by the 
American Food and Drug Administration, we will have to wait for 
an answer. Until doctors try using and understanding the power of 
magnets instead of large complicated pieces of machinery, we will 
never know the answer. Instead, most people will have to rely on a 
lot of bogus science that is being peddled by marketing companies 
making wild claims about the curative powers of magnets. 

As an example of poor research that exacerbates confusion, a 
group of scientists headed by Cepeda in 2007 declared that the goal 
of their paper was to evaluate the effect of magnetic therapy on pain 
intensity, but failed to mention either the strength of the magnet 
employed or its strength at its target. The study aimed to measure 



the effectiveness of a magnet for postoperative surgery, but the 
magnet was placed on a wound for the limited time of two hours. 
Why was this random period chosen? And why did the authors also 
not provide any information on the strength of the magnet they 
had used? Surely they must have known that this is very important 
information. What did they think the magnet was going to do? Did 
they think that magnets are miracle cures that will cure anything in 
a matter of hours? If so, I think we would all have known about this 
phenomenon a long time ago. 

Their conclusion was that "magnetic therapy lacks efficacy". 
How could they come up with such a conclusion based on this one 
experiment? Are they saying that all of the science in this area is 
wrong and they are right? Are they arrogant enough to dismiss this 
whole area of science based on one very likely flawed experiment? 
Especially as, conversely, Eccles, two years earlier, had conducted a 
critical review of randomised controlled trials of static magnets for 
pain relief and found that "73% of the analysed studies demonstrated 
a positive effect of static magnets in achieving analgesia across a 
broad range of different types of pain". Or to put it more simply, 
three out of four studies proved that magnets had a positive effect 
on pain relief. 

Hundreds of papers published in scientific and medical 
journals have clearly demonstrated that selected magnetic fields 
have a beneficial effect on the healing process of damaged tissues 
and speed up the process of regeneration of these damaged tissues. 
One periodical, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, exclusively 
publishes scientific studies specialising in this field. Sadly, this 
magazine does not have a large readership, otherwise there might 
have been much less negativity surrounding this area. 

So what is the process that allows magnets to affect our biology? 
I would argue that it is simply a vibration emanating from the 



magnets that causes their curative properties. How can I prove this 
idea? - easily. Magnets emit magnetic waves, which is the same 
thing as saying a magnet emits specific vibrations depending upon 
its strength. If it were possible to pinpoint the correct strength of 
a magnet and then measure its vibrational frequency, it would be 
possible to reproduce this using a frequency-generating machine. 
Such a machine is used daily throughout the world - it is called an 
ultrasound machine. If this machine produced successful results 
when used on bone healing, it would logically follow that it is the 
vibrations of the magnets that is curative. 

I am delighted to say that the first reported use of ultrasound in 
enhancing fracture healing was demonstrated over fifty years ago 
by Hippe and Uhlman. In their experiments, they discovered that 
ultrasound reduced the healing time of bones from one hundred 
and fifty-four days to ninety-six days. The use of ultrasound is now 
highly established, yet electromagnetic treatment that has been 
used for thirty years in bone healing is still not completely accepted. 
Magnetic treatment, on the other hand, is mostly ridiculed and 
characterised as being a sham science. It is just another battle 
against medical doctrine that will eventually win, but how long do 
we all have to wait for the sceptics to accept change? Why are the 
good scientific papers not getting through, yet the bad ones are 
receiving more media attention? 

It is no surprise that people are buying magnets for themselves, 
ignoring the advice of the medical establishment as they prefer to 
try out so-called alternative and complementary ideas rather than 
take drugs to reduce inflammation. If only doctors revised their 
opinion from believing that "theoretically magnet therapy seems 
unrealistic", progress could finally be made. If you ever find yourself 
discussing this with a doctor, just remind them about the Apollo 



space missions that have been taking place for the last fifty years, 
and see if they attempt to wriggle out of that proof! 


If magnets have a potentially hugely significant role to play within 
our biological make-up, is there another area of science in which 
they could play an important role? It was not hard to find the answer 
to this - it is plants. I find it very sad, however, that this knowledge 
is not more widely known. It is I think a crime that you are reading 
about this in a book on science. A crime that you are not at all 
aware of what I am about to tell you. A crime that it took me only 
a few weeks of research to discover that it is possible to eradicate a 
large amount of the world's food shortages by simply using sound 
or electromagnetic vibrations on plant seeds and growing plants. 
A crime that the seed companies have not spent large amounts of 
research money to develop seeds that have been exposed to these 
vibrations. A crime that the scientists who conduct experiments on 
seeds do not have a basic understanding of the behaviour of plants. 
And I believe it is a crime that we have not compiled a table of sound 
waves that are appropriate for each plant type. 

I think you will gather that I am a little bit angry on this subject, 
and I hope you will be too after reading this section. But can you 
imagine what could happen if plants could grow up to 50% larger 
simply by giving the seeds a little magnetic tickle? No fertilisers would 
be needed in the fields. There would be no genetically modified 
crops and no technical trickery. No adverse effects on consumption. 
No adverse effects on our digestive system or our biology. In fact 
there would be literally no downside, except a financial one for large 
corporations who rely on producing fertilisers, or seed companies 
who rely on farmers buying genetically modified seeds. All of this 
could be a thing of the past if only scientists would conduct or heed 



the available research. Although judging by most of the research 
papers in this field, much of the blame can also be passed on to the 
scientists whose poor research methods have not helped the science 
progress further. 

I am giving away a billion dollar idea here, as I believe it is more 
important that the world should know about it than one company 
should be able to make vast sums of money for its shareholders. I 
will admit, however, that as a businessman it did cross my mind 
that I could become seriously rich by creating a seed company 
that retained the specific vibrational frequencies required, in 
order to facilitate extra growth. I could patent the idea and then 
either manufacture the seeds or sell out to a large multinational 
organisation. But my major concern would be: how could I get this 
idea out to as many people as possible so that the idea would take 
off? I feel that, even though I could probably make a good attempt at 
it, the idea would work best if researchers around the world took it 
upon themselves to find the specific frequencies of each individual 
plant of most interest to them. Then the table of frequencies could 
be compiled significantly more quickly than one person or company 
could achieve. I also do not want a patent to be put out on the unique 
vibration of each plant as I feel that this should be an open-access 
piece of information. 


The first person to carry out large-scale experiments into the effects 
of electrical vibrations on plants via an electrical current was Karl 
Lemstrom - this was back in 1904, before Bose (see Chapter 7) 
produced his results on the behaviour of plants. Lemstrom surmised, 
after a trip to the Arctic, that the green and healthy vegetation he 
found there might be a result of the weak electric currents carried 
through the atmosphere by ions from the aurora borealis. His ideas 



were confirmed when he compared the annual growth rings of fir 
trees in the region with sunspot cycles when the aurora would have 
been at its most active. Lemstrom tested his theory by exposing 
a range of different crops in several European countries to high- 
voltage gradients from wires suspended above them. He found 
that the treated plants were greener, sturdier and often showed 
dramatic increases in yield compared with the untreated samples. 
On average, there was a yield stimulation of around 45%. 

What was the reaction of the scientific community? Well, there 
was a flurry of activity by agricultural scientists in the 1920s (yes, 
they took their time) , who showed similar results, but also discovered 
that the amount of electrical flow was an important factor in the 
success of any experiment. They also found that not every field trial 
with wheat, barley or oats was successful: out of eighteen field trials, 
only fourteen gave significant results. Most of this research died out 
in the 1930s, probably because the results were inconsistent. 

Interpretations of why the experiments did not always work 
have been very mixed. One scientist suggested that it was related 
to the way plants behave in an electrical storm and how they adapt 
to the best use of water in such conditions. My suggestion is more 
contentious than this and is based upon reading up on hundreds 
of different experiments and on the knowledge of the behaviour 
of plants that I have gleaned from reading the books of J.C. Bose. I 
would argue that maybe the reason for the misunderstanding about 
the effect of electromagnetic forces on plants is because scientists 
do not understand plants very well. Would scientists conduct a drug 
trial on a giraffe, a pig and a rhinoceros and expect to get similar 
results just because they are all animals? If not, why do they think 
that oat, barley and wheat will behave the same just because they 
are all plants? Each plant must be treated individually. You cannot 
expect one strength of electromagnetic wave to affect an oak tree in 



the same way as a geranium. 

Each plant has its own unique behaviour. It is important, when 
conducting any study on plants, for the experimenter to be aware 
that the length of time each plant is exposed to an electromagnetic 
field is crucial. Why is this? If I wire myself up to an electrical 
stimulation (TENS) machine that is constantly on, all day every 
day, for a matter of weeks, my body will react badly. However, if 
I were to use the TENS machine for only thirty minutes a day, my 
body would be less likely to react badly. Experiments by Bose have 
shown that electrical stimulation causes fatigue, just as if you over 
stimulate a muscle, it will behave negatively. If you provide only a 
small electrical stimulation, the muscle behaves positively up to a 
certain point, after which it behaves negatively, so finding the perfect 
length of stimulation is essential when conducting any experiment. 
As Chapter 7 describes, muscle fatigue is exactly the same as plant 
fatigue, so when conducting experiments on plants, it is essential 
not to over stimulate them, otherwise they will slow their rate of 
growth. Most experiments do not take these basic fundamental facts 
into consideration. 

Research on stimulating seeds with electrical currents has also 
met with mixed results. Initial favourable reports were the trigger for 
some very poorly administered scientific experiments in the 1960s 
and 1970s, which led to a dismissal of the concept and most of the 
research. Recent research, however, has shown that an electrical 
current can have a positive effect, although this research has not met 
with a wider audience as it was conducted only very recently and by 
a group of Chinese authors. But the fact is that you can increase 
crop growth in all plants by the use of either an electrical vibration 
brought about by an electrical current, or a sound vibration created 
by a sound wave. 

This has been proved, but it has been a question of finding 



the right scientific papers whose researchers have conducted 
experiments based on sensible scientific principles, not ones that 
over stimulate the plants with sound or electromagnetic currents 
that are on for twenty-four hours a day. These will produce results 
that are obviously going to be poor. Not surprisingly, those studies 
that stimulated the plants for only a matter of minutes or seconds 
produced positive results. Fortunately, in an experiment conducted 
on tomato seeds in 2006 in Cuba, it was shown that the seeds 
treated with a magnetic field for only three minutes or ten minutes 
had a significant growth increase over untreated seeds. Maybe other 
scientists should look at these results and take note that you only 
need a quick zap to generate significant results. This experiment 
showed there is a remarkable increase in the plant's production 
of tomatoes - but not the number of tomatoes, just their size. It 
seems to have the same effect as fertiliser. And a follow-up study 
conducted four years later found similar results. 

In an experiment in India in 2008, chickpea seeds were exposed 
to magnetic fields of varying strengths for between one and four 
hours, which is up to eighty times more exposure than the tomato 
experiment. But why did the researchers choose this timescale? 
It is a constant conundrum to me why scientists choose random 
lengths of time and random frequencies. But even with these longer 
exposure times, the researchers achieved significant results. They 
found that the less the seeds were exposed, the greater the effect, 
so one hour's exposure was more productive than a four-hour 
exposure. It is a shame that they did not continue the experiment 
downwards from one hour to one minute to see the difference. 

Not only is the length of time important, but so is choosing the 
correct vibrational frequency. At about the same time, in Taiwan, 
a group of scientists was looking into the effect that different 
magnetic frequencies had on the seed germination of mung beans. 



As an aside, it's interesting to note that the seeds experimented 
on in different countries are of particular interest to that country: 
mung beans are as popular in Taiwan as chickpeas are in India. In 
this particular experiment on mung bean seeds, different magnetic 
fields induced by frequencies of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 Hz had 
dramatically different results on the mung beans. The 20 and 
60 Hz magnetic fields were best at producing increased growth of 
the seeds, water uptake and root diameter. The 10 Hz magnetic field 
showed no noticeable change over the control group, and the 30, 
40 and 50 Hz fields produced poorer results - 50 Hz in fact had an 
inhibiting effect on the early growth of the mung beans. 

These few studies show very clearly that there is an underlying 
certainty that plants can react both positively and negatively to 
electrical stimulation. This stimulation has an effect on the plant's 
ability to grow and therefore produce more fruit, which for the 21st 
century is obviously a fundamental objective. 







Introduction To 

The bees and 
the birds 

" Today, unprecedented exposure levels and intensities of magnetic, 
electric, and electromagnetic fields from numerous wireless 
technologies intefere with the natural information system and 
functioning of humans, animals, and plants. The consequences of 
this development, which have already been predicted by critics for 
many decades, cannot be ignored anymore. Bees and other insects 
vanish; birds avoid certain places and become disorientated at 
others. Humans suffer from functional impairments and diseases. 
And insofar as the latter are hereditary, they will be passed on to 
next generations as pre-existing defects". 

Prof. K. Hecht, Dr. M. Kern, Prof. K. Richter, Dr. H. Scheiner, "Effects of 
Wireless Communication Technologies" 2009 



The decline in the bee population is a catastrophe! It 
seems to have slipped under the radar for most people, 
but if the decline continues, our food supply is in grave 
danger. Bees allow plants to pollinate, and without 
pollination new plants are not created. If that happens, the food 
chain will break down, and animals, birds and humans who rely on 
plants for their food source could starve. If the bees collapse and die 
out, so will a large proportion of the world's food supplies. 

What a terrifying thought! Thankfully, governments have finally 
acknowledged this problem and are financing investigations. The 
US government is investing $10 million into looking at how our 
food chain is going to be affected, but doesn't that sound like a paltry 
sum to investigate such a potentially major crisis? If the problem is 
so significant and the outcome is so damaging, isn't this too tiny 
amount to invest? 

I have to admit to having no previous knowledge of bees. The 
only fact I can remember from my childhood is the one I think we 
all know, about Bumble Bees not being able to fly as their body is 
too big and heavy for their wing size - aerodynamically, they defy 
science (which does not say much for the experts on aerodynamics). 
I profess to not taking much interest in bees until recently, but I was 
forced to when I read a few years ago about the declining numbers of 
bees and the effect this would have on nature. But like most people, 
I have just relied on the scientists to come up with an answer that 
would solve this predicament. Sadly, however, comparatively little 
is being done. The most depressing part is that I managed to find 
a solution to the problem without having received any funding, a 
solution that would cost virtually nothing to put in place and could 
possibly entirely eradicate the disappearance of bees. 

This solution is based on simple logic. I am lucky in that I am 
able to look at the problem from a neutral position, by considering 



both the scientific evidence and the anecdotal evidence (even if only 
because it is so interesting). I am going to walk you through my 
idea and hopefully you will be able to draw the same conclusions 
as I did. Then you can ask yourself these questions - how is it that 
more people don't know about this area, and why is the science 
community still funding parochial research projects that cannot 
possibly solve the problem? 

So why are bees so important? It is because nature has devised a 
system that requires these insects to play a major role in pollination, 
which is the equivalent of sexual reproduction in flowering plants. 
Pollination is an essential part of the process in the reproduction 
of plants that then go on to produce fruit, nuts and vegetables - 
indeed, 90% of flowering plants require insect assistance to help 
them pollinate. Bees collect nectar from flowers in order to make 
honey, and while they are collecting it, they rub up against the 
pollen, on what is the equivalent of the male sexual organ, and 

the flowers could not pollinate, and without fertilized flowers, there 
would be a severe worldwide shortage of fruit, nuts and vegetables. 

I think it will come as a bit of a surprise to many people that bees 
are also used as a commodity, a sort of "sexual guns for hire". Tens 
of thousands of bee hives are transported around the US in order 

Bee pollinating a plant 

some of this pollen attaches itself 
to the bee's body. The bee then 
flies around to other flowers to 
collect nectar and in the process 
transfers the pollen from flower to 
flower and takes the pollen to the 
carpel within each flower, which 
is the equivalent of the female 
sexual organ. Thus, the bees act as 
a sexual conduit. Without the bees, 

l8 3 


to help pollinate specific crops at certain times of the year if there 
are not enough local bees in order to do the job. Bee hives are not 
stationary; they are a mobile business. In fact, during the growing 
season, bees are moved around the country two or three times. 
One of the harvests the bees are needed for is that of almond crops, 
as there are not enough local bees to be able to pollinate the vast 
numbers of almond trees. In the US alone, the total contribution of 
pollination in terms of added value to fruit crops exceeds $15 billion 
per annum. In the US alone, the bees pollinate one hundred and 
thirty different crops. 

In the US between 2008 and 2009, the number of honey bees 
fell 29% according to a survey by the US Department of Agriculture. 
This followed on from losses in the previous years of 36% between 
2007 and 2008, and 32% between 2006 and 2007. Understandably, 
the U S honey industry has been severely affected by this catastrophe. 
The consequences are so large that the US government has set up 
a committee to investigate the phenomenon and present a paper 
outlining the ongoing research. The US Department of Agriculture 
estimates that every third bite that Americans consume in their diet 
is dependent upon honey bee pollination. 

I find it very alarming that mainstream research ignores the 
only obvious solution to the problem, the only answer that fits the 
facts. Bee experts and bird experts are all looking at the same issues. 
The conclusions in all of the research documents I have read are 
almost identical. If a group of students who were not experts in the 
study of bees but who were being taught science at college were 
asked for the likely causes of the bee collapse, I believe their answers 
would be very similar to those in the Congressional report. They are 
textbook answers. The point I am making is that the researchers 
have not taken the time to look at alternative ideas, ones that are 
related to the observed behaviour of the bees, rather than continuing 



Relying on Bees 

Some of the most valuable fruits, vegetables, nuts and field crops depend 
on insect pollinators, particularly honeybees. 

Crop Value 

in billions 2006 

pollinated by 
































Percentage of crop pollinated by.. 

Honeybees Other Insects Other 


Besides insects, other means of pollination include birds, wind and rainwater. 

Sources: United States Department of Agriculture; 

Roger A. Morse and Nicholas W, Calderone, Cornell University 

the scientists' current research into issues that are not specifically 
related to the disappearance of the bees. 


The problem facing the bee industry has been called colony collapse 
disorder, or CCD. What exactly is this? Well, put very simply, it 
means that the bees take off one morning and disappear, never to 
return to the hive. No-one knows where they go or what happens to 
them after they leave, or how they end up dying. If you owned a few 
hives and the bees slowly started disappearing, so that in the end all 
of your hives were completely empty with no indication of any sort 
as to the cause of the problem, alarm bells would be ringing! You 
would panic as you watched your business disappearing in front of 
your eyes. This is the position the Apiary Inspectors of America find 

i8 5 


themselves in. And they are not alone. This is a phenomenon that is 
happening throughout the world. All honey bee production is being 
affected - it is not just in America. 

A report for Congress in 2008 entitled Recent Honey Bee Colony 
Declines found that the authors believe the potential causes of CCD 
to include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: 

1. Parasites, mites and disease loads in the bees and brood; 

2. The emergence of new or more virulent pathogens; 

3. Poor nutrition amongst adult bees; 

4. A lack of genetic diversity and lineage of bees; 

5. The level of stress in adult bees (for example, the transportation 
and confinement of bees, overcrowding or other environmental 
or biological stressors); 

6. Chemical residues or contamination in the wax, food stores 
and/or bees; 

7. A combination of these and/or other factors. 

The document has been thoroughly researched and discusses 
with great alarm this new phenomenon of CCD. It underlines the 
fact that this is a new phenomenon, and although there have been 
losses in the number of bees before, there has never been a situation 
in which bees have failed to return to their hive, particularly in such 
large numbers: 

Among the key symptoms of CCD in collapsed colonies 
is that the adult population is suddenly gone without any 
accumulation of dead bees. The bees are not returning to 
the hive but are leaving behind their brood (young bees), 
their queen, and maybe a small cluster of adults. What is 
uncharacteristic about this situation is that the honey bee 
is a very social insect and colony-oriented, with a complex 



and organized nesting colony. Failing to return to the hive is 
considered highly unusual. An absence of a large number of 
dead bees makes an analysis of the causes of CCD difficult. 

The report did not produce a final conclusion as to the 
specific determinants of CCD; it has been left to other research 
organisations to discover a possible cause. One such research paper 
has discovered what the authors believe to be the answer to this 
problem - a parasite. In a study published in the new journal from 
the Society for Applied Microbiology, Environmental Microbiology 
Reports, scientists from Spain analysed two apiaries and found 
evidence of CCD. They found no evidence of any other cause of the 
disease other than infection with the parasite Nosema ceranae. When 
the researchers then treated the infected surviving underpopulated 
colonies with the antibiotic drug fumagillin, they demonstrated the 
complete recovery of all infected colonies: 

Now that we know one strain of parasite that could be 
responsible, we can look for signs of infection and treat any 
infected colonies before the infection spreads. 

Really? Is it that simple? A parasite can affect all bees, but will 
destroying this parasite cure a problem that appears in many 
countries across the world? Maybe it is that simple, and again 
maybe it isn't. Maybe scientists are going down the same road as 
they always do while looking for a problem, focusing in on smaller 
and smaller specialist ideas rather than stepping back and looking 
at this problem as a whole. For example, are bees the only insects 
that are having this problem? Are there any other areas of nature 
that are suffering from the same issues? Of course there are, and 
this is going to be the way we can work out the real reason why bees 
are disappearing. 

i8 7 


Maybe parasites are the answer, or at least part of it, but what 
about agriculture and the use of pesticides? What research has been 
conducted there? US scientists have found one hundred and twenty- 
one different pesticides in samples of bees, wax and pollen, which 
has added weight to the belief that the pesticides are the cause of the 
problem. In fact, this is probably one of the largest areas of research 
into the causes of CCD in the US as it seems to be the most logical 
and easiest explanation for the bees' disappearance. If the bees, 
while out pollinating, also pick up the pesticides that have been used 
on the crops, there is no doubt that the bees will be affected by them. 
But this is not a new issue: pesticides have been used in agriculture 
for a long time. Some experts, however, conclude that it must be due 
to some "subtle interactions between nutrition, pesticide exposure 
and other stressors that are converging to kill colonies". 

But there is no actual evidence anywhere to support the fact that 
the pesticides are the cause, only statistics that say the bees have a 
lot of pesticides within them, which they have probably always had. 
None of the numerous research papers that has looked at pesticides 
has in fact shown that this is the cause of any demise whatsoever. 
It is like saying that if you were to analyse the human body and 
discovered that we had pesticides within our bodies, which we 
of course do, these are the cause of cancer. It is not a conclusion 
that you can make with any authority. Yes, there is a statistical 
relationship, but this proves nothing whatsoever. 

The question that must always be asked in the first instance 
in order to solve this problem is why are the bees disappearing; 
why are they not found dead in the bee hives? Does a bee that is 
contaminated with a pesticide answer this riddle? To me, the answer 
is no, because if the answer were a pesticide, I believe you would 
find dead bees in and around the hive. But you don't, so this seems 
to be an area of research that is not going to find a solution. 



One other point to mention is that bees kept on organic farms 
that do not use pesticides are also suffering from CCD, causing a 
scientific dilemma for those who think that pesticides are the sole 
cause of the problem. How is it possible that bees on organic farms 
are suffering the same fate? The only way for this to happen would 
be for the bees to stray from the organic farm and then pick up 
pesticides in adjacent non-organic fields. This might well be true. 
But then there would have to be a mechanism by which it spread to 
all of the other bees that had not strayed away from the organic area 
(for which a transmission process has not yet been recognised). 

So that leaves us with the bee management, viruses and 
environmental factors. Has anything changed in the way bees 
have been managed over the past few years? I can find no 
research anywhere suggesting that this can be the cause; in fact, 
bee management has hardly changed since Roman times - the 
principles are still pretty much the same. 

So let's move on to another idea that was put forward by the 
US Congressional report I mentioned above: viruses. Can this 
explain the problem of CCD? If it did, it would mean that a virus 
somehow affected the bee's ability to fly or caused it to lose its sense 
of direction, and this virus would have to affect all of the bees in 
exactly the same way. As none of the bees is dying within the hive, it 
is unlikely that the cause of the problem is a virus that has affected 
the bees' ability to fly, because then you would find many bees dead 
or dying either in the hive or very near to it. A virus that somehow 
affects their ability to navigate, however, is a distinct possibility 
as it would explain very simply why the bees die away from the 
hive. Imagine a virus that attacked the bee's navigational homing 
system. The bee, while out collecting nectar, would fly around in 
all directions gathering nectar from plants, but when it had found 
enough it would not be able to return home - it would simply be 

i8 9 


lost. The bee would not be able to find its hive and would eventually 
die in a field somewhere. 

From a logical point of view, this seems to be the most plausible. 
However, it presupposes one thing that maybe not every scientist 
agrees with, and this is the fact that bees are homing creatures and 
use a homing system that allows then to navigate back to their hive. 
Many scientists believe the bees also tune into visual and chemical 
signals in order to find their way around. However, one story will 
clearly dismiss the idea that bees use anything other than their 
homing abilities, employing gravitational magnetic signals, to 
navigate to find their hive. 

What is this story? It is one I read in a bee-keeping journal 
written by a bee-keeper in 1902. When I first read it, it seemed quite 
astonishing as I had not at that time concluded that bees were in 
fact homing creatures. Mr F.W. Hilgendorf was looking into the 
proposition put forward by fellow bee-keepers that ants and bees 
find their way home not by any special sense of direction, but by a 
knowledge of the district in which they are working. In his address 
to the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, New Zealand, Mr 
Hilgendorf went on to describe what had happened to him in the 
week after hearing this proposition: 

During the same week I was working with my bees and in the 
busy time of the day when many of the bees were out foraging, 
I had occasion to move a hive 3ft to one side. In a few minutes 
a number of bees had alighted on the former site of the hive 
and crawled about there, or rose and circled around the spot, 
without making any attempt to enter the hive standing only 
afoot or two away. All those that were out at work when the 
hive was moved came back to the old site and stayed there until 
night fell, when they perished of cold: and this experience is not 
exceptional, but is familiar to all bee-keepers. 



This evidence disproves what Mr Hilgendorf had originally tried 
to explain, and it was of interest to him because it actually discredited 
his theory. The experiment he conducted was a very simple one. 
When the bees left the hive, he moved the hive one metre away 
from its original position. The bees had no idea the hive was just a 
metre away; there were no clues from any visual shapes or patterns, 
and no chemical smells they could pick up on. The only clue to the 
location of their hive was an electromagnetic one coming from their 
homing abilities. It seems to me that this is a fundamental point we 
all need to be very aware of because once we understand it, it follows 
that bees use unknown sensors to find a path back to their hive, 
using the earth's electromagnetic signals to calculate where the hive 
is located. They do not use their sense of smell or sight in order to 
find their way home. 

The most troubling issue for me about this piece of research is 
that I have not found it replicated anywhere. I have mentioned it to 
a few bee-keepers, but they have had no idea that the bees did this. 
Maybe scientists and bee-keepers are not aware of this fundamental 
behavioural pattern of the bee. If so, this is pretty alarming because 
it would mean that much research has been wasted over the past 
hundred years. This information also provides a very simple answer 
to the problem of CCD: the bees are getting lost and are looking for 
a hive somewhere else due to an external electromagnetic signal 
affecting their homing abilities. 

It could of course be a virus that is affecting their homing 
abilities, and not an external electromagnetic source. But does this 
solution provide the answer to the problem of bees dying out all 
around the world at the same time? The virus would have to spread 
faster and wider than bubonic plague and affect only bees. This is 
theoretically possible, but somehow it seems just too much of an 
easy option - plus the fact that obviously no-one has found such 



a virus, although that is no reason to rule out the possibility of its 

Could there be another much simpler solution, one that answers 
all of the issues, one that fits very neatly with all of the facts, one that 
is pertinent to not only bees, but also every other insect or bird that 
relies upon its homing abilities? If only scientists would look at the 
bigger picture and investigate similar occurrences in other areas of 
research, they might find answers to their problems very quickly. It 
did not take me long to discover that the same thing happening to 
bees is also happening to the bird population within cities around 
the world. 

One clue to the bee's problems was discovered by Siegfried 
Vogel, who was a small honey-producer in Germany for fifteen 
years until the year 2004, when all of his bee colonies died out. At 
the time, he had four colonies that he kept housed in an old wooden 
truck trailer in his garden. What led Vogel to conclude that there was 
only one cause of the problem was the fact that his son, Reinhold 
Vogel, also kept three bee colonies in the same truck, but none of 
his bee colonies disappeared. What was the difference between the 
two styles of bee-keeping to cause this anomaly? - the only variation 
was that Reinhold kept his bee colonies in an old aluminium-lined 
container within the trailer, and this aluminium seemed to be 
protecting them. 

This is not scientific evidence in any way - it is purely anecdotal 
- but when you start putting together all of the pieces of the jigsaw, 
a simple solution becomes so obvious that it is hard to conclude 
that there is any other. In this case, there must be something that 
the aluminium is doing to protect the bees from a very damaging 
effect. Siegfried Vogel concluded that there was only one cause: 
the three new mobile phone masts that had been built in his area. 
This, he concluded, was the only logical cause of the problem. The 



aluminium shield was somehow protecting his son's bees from the 
electromagnetic waves that were being emitted from the masts. 

By an extraordinary coincidence, I happened to be watching a 
cooking programme on television presented by Jamie Oliver, the 
British celebrity chef, who was in Greece filming an episode for his 
series. The recipe that he was working on involved honey, and as he 
was showing the audience how to cook the dish, he started talking 
about bees and their disappearance. Of course, I suddenly sat up - 
in hope rather than expectation, as I was curious as to what he was 
about to say. Incredibly, he started talking about the experiences 
of the local bee farmer who had noticed that in areas in which his 
mobile telephone worked, he had lost most of his bees from CCD, 
but in isolated areas in which his mobile phone had no reception, 
he had lost none of his bees. At this news, I began whooping with 
satisfaction all alone in front of my television, as here was anecdotal 
confirmation of everything that I believed to be true! Sadly, when I 
trawled the newspapers the following day, no-one seemed to have 
picked up on it. At least, I thought, the four million people who 
might be watching the programme had been offered a new insight 
into an alternative idea that might help solve the problem, so that 
when this book was finally published, the public might not be so 
surprised to find that mobile phone masts are the most likely cause. 

In 1985, two scientists, Walker and Bitterman, proved that 
bees are affected by magnetic fields, and their experiments were 
subsequently replicated to confirm the results in 1991. So there is 
clear scientific evidence that bees possess a sensitivity to magnetic 
fields, and that changes in the direction of the magnetic field affect 
their behaviour. These experiments led to much research into how 
this occurred and, just as with birds (see below), to much debate 
that has proved inconclusive. However, from my point of view, I 
am interested not in how it works, but in the fact it does work. If 

J 93 


bees are affected by magnetic fields, it follows that any disturbance 
in this magnetic field can have an effect on their behaviour. What 
that effect is, however, is very speculative due to the lack of research 
in this field. I am always prepared to speculate, and I would suggest 
that changes in the magnetic fields caused by human interference 
are a major contributor to CCD. 

One scientist who has investigated this area more than anyone 
over the past forty years appears to be the lone voice trying to get his 
message across to the authorities. He is Ulrich Warnke, presently 
chairman of the Institute Physiology Forum at the University of 
Saarland, Germany. Sadly for him - and a tragedy for everyone 
else - it seems that he has not yet been heard, despite conducting 
experiment after experiment clearly showing that bees are affected 
by electromagnetic signals: 

Insects such as bees receive these oscillations (from electrical 
storms) and recognise them as storm warnings. We were able to 
show that bees return in great numbers when these oscillations 
are simulated and transmitted, using a highly amplified signal 
generator. If the amplitudes of the artificial oscillations overlap 
with the natural signals, however, the return rate rapidly 
decreases. The bees fail to find their way home. 

In his early research in the 1970s and 1980s, Warnke investigated 
the effect of artificially created electrical fields on the bees' behaviour. 
He found that a stimulation of 50 Hz: 

...caused significant restlessness of the bees in their enclosure. 
The colony temperature increases greatly. The defence of the 
social territory is uncontrollably increased to the point where 
individuals in a colony stab one other to death. They no longer 



recognise one other. After a few days in the field, the bees tear 
their brood from the cells; no new brood is reared. Honey and 
pollen are also depleted and then no longer collected. Bees that 
were newly established in their hives shortly before the start of 
the experiment always abandon the hive again and disappear 
when the electrical field is switched on. Bees that have lived 
in their hive for a long time, plug all the cracks and holes with 
propolis, including the entrance. This otherwise only happens in 
winter in a cold draught. 

Since an acute lack of oxygen develops when the cracks and the 
entrance are plugged, the bees attempt to introduce air by intensive 
fanning. In this process, the wing muscles generate temperatures 
high enough to melt the wax. The animals attempt to fight the 
temperature increase by more fanning. In the end, the colony burns 
itself out. This implies the death of all members of the colony - 
which we could obviously prevent in future. 

With experiments using 30-40 Hz: 

When the field is switched on, the animals suddenly move their 
wings and buzz at frequencies of 100-150 Hz. 

But the most relevant effect for CCD (which I've emphasised in 
the quote below) happened at the lowest frequency Warnke and his 
team tested, 10-20 Hz: 

With signals in the frequency range of 10 to 20 Hz, the 
aggressiveness was increased and the homing ability much 
reduced even though the natural meteorological and 
electromagnetic environment was intact in the flight space. 

This last paragraph makes a very important point. The earth's 

J 95 


natural magnetic waves are in the 10 Hz range, so it is obvious that 
bees will have ways of using this specific frequency in line with 
their homing abilities. This is true of every animal - they all use 
this frequency. Therefore, if you interfere with it, the bees' capacity 
to use their homing skills will be affected, which is why it comes as 
no surprise to discover that emitting an interfering frequency in the 
10-20 Hz range "reduced the homing ability of the bees". Mobile 
phone technology uses a range of different frequencies: 2 Hz, 
8.34 Hz, 30-40 Hz and 217 Hz. Any one of these could be the cause 
of the problem, but the fact that there are four types makes it easier 
to believe that the combination of all four is very likely to be a major 
factor in the bees' inability to navigate home. 

One would expect, following Warnke's results in the 1970s, 
that there would have been a lot of follow-up research into the 
effects of telecommunication on bees' behaviour. However, I can 
find only one significant scientific paper, since that first research 
was completed in 1975, that analyses the relationship between 
electromagnetic waves from telecommunications technology and 
bees' behaviour. This study has been picked up by newspapers, 
sadly for the unsuspecting scientists, and used to prove that mobile 
phone technology has been the cause of the bees' disappearance. It 
would be good to use this study as evidence to support the theory; 
however, all it does is show how the media distorts the truth. The 
study tested the concept that cordless phones might affect the bees' 
behaviour, but it did not look at mobile phone technology, which is 
a completely different area of science. It would be negligent to say 
this one study proved any relationship - all it really did was just to 
give an insight into what might be the truth. 

The study was conducted in Germany at the University of 
Koblenz-Landau by Jochen Kuhn and colleagues in 2007 and was 
entitled "Electromagnetic radiation: influences on honeybees". It 



investigated the use of cordless phones - but not, as I have said, 
mobile phones - and the behavioural effect these had on bees. This 
experiment only lasted forty-five minutes. I am not sure why, as it 
might have been more interesting for the experiment to last a lot 
longer, and it would be very simple to have put a camera on each 
hive so that the number of bees leaving and returning over a longer 
period could easily be counted. Maybe that was going to be the follow- 
up study, who knows, but as far as the scientists were concerned, this 
study was a very simple experiment and not one that set out to prove 
one thing or another. 

The results, however, of just this forty-five minute experiment were 
intriguing, to say the least, and definitely worthy of a follow-up: 63% 
of the bees in the control group returned within forty-five minutes, 
compared with 49% of the exposed groups. In their conclusion, the 
scientists came up with a contradiction, stating on the one hand that "a 
significant difference between exposed and non-exposed bee colonies 
could be observed" and then a few sentences later that: 

A possible influence of the radiation intensity could not be 
proven by this study, because no significant differences between 
the group-pairs could be detected. Also, a clear distinction 
between the low-frequency pulse of the DECT base station and 
its high-frequency sending radiation could not be drawn, despite 
the fact that a significant difference between the non-exposed 
bees and the fully irradiated ones can be counted as a result of 
the influence of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation. 

What they are basically saying is that this simple experiment is 
of interest but does not prove anything. That is all very well, but journalists 
are renowned for "not letting the facts get in the way of a good story". 
What the media did is just quote the first part of the scientists' results and 



conclusion, that is the sentence in which they say "a significant difference 
between exposed and non-exposed bee colonies could be observed", and 
run with that story. An internet search will reveal hundreds of related stories 
all saying that a link had been found proving that mobile phone technology 
was the cause of CCD. This is not true, but it does point to the possibility that 
it might be, although it is just a forty-five minute experiment: we cannot say 
that mobile phone technology and low-level electromagnetic waves are not 
the cause of CCD, only that this experiment is not the smoking gun that 
proves it one way or another. 

My problem with science within this field is why, after this initial 
experiment, hundreds of others have not been conducted to try to prove 
the initial results of this German study in greater detail. If you look at the 
US Congressional report that was written a year after the experiment, it 
does not refer to this type of research at all; it is as if it has been completely 
ignored. But this is a major issue because it brings out all the fears that 
people have about big business or governments interfering and massaging 
the truth for political or financial reasons. Let's look at two facts here: 

1 . The bee colonies started dying out only very recently - it was only 
in 2000 that bee-keepers started to notice there was a problem. 

2. The growth of mobile and wi-fi technology has grown 
exponentially over the past 10 years. 

This is not scientific proof of anything, but it would make me 
want to study the relationship in greater detail if I were a scientist, 
particularly if I knew that bees were homing creatures. 

It would be a very simple theory to prove. All it would require 
would be research into the geographical areas where the bees have 
been affected, and the areas in which they have not been affected. I 
would guess that any developing country that does not possess any 
mobile communication system or internet technology would not 

i 9 8 


be affected. If this simple piece of data were available, it could be 
used to prove that something we were doing was the cause of the 
problem, rather than it being a virus or a hive-management issue, 
as scientists keep trying to implicate. 

Take India as an example. It too is now suffering from CCD, as 
predicted. A plunge in the bee population has been found in Kerala, 
a part of India that has only recently introduced mobile phone 
towers. Is this a coincidence? Not at all, says Dr Pattazhy, a reader in 
Zoology at the Sree Narayana College in Kollam, who has allegedly 
conducted a study in this field. I say "allegedly" because his study 
has been reported in a number of newspapers in India, but I have 
been unable to view the original source, so I cannot confirm his 
exact discoveries. However, the newspapers report that his study 
has shown the collapse of a bee colony in five to ten days when a 
mobile telephone was left next to the hive, the worker bees failing to 
return home, and leaving the hives with just queens, eggs and hive- 
bound immature bees. 

So what am I trying to say about the bees? It is simply that 
scientists must now, as a priority, investigate the relationship 
between technology and the loss of the bee industry, and test a very 
simple solution to curing the problem. I believe that a very cheap 
and simple method of wrapping the hives in a protective cover that 
prevented the bees from picking up electromagnetic waves would 
provide a solution. 

If the bees were an isolated incidence, it would be much easier 
to dismiss this idea as New Age nonsense but, as you will read in 
the following section, this is not a one-off problem but one that is 
affecting birds as well. 

J 99 



What can we learn from birds that might help us in our understanding 
of the effects of electromagnetic waves on the homing capabilities of 
bees? It seems pretty logical that if there is any effect on bees, this 
same effect would manifest itself with all homing creatures. 

Now, there is nothing more "homing" than a homing pigeon; it 
is one bird we can all agree that does have navigational abilities. In 
fact, these abilities have been known for thousands of years and were 
said to have been used by the Romans as a form of communication 

between different 
armies. The possibility 
that birds have this 
homing capability 
is therefore not in 
dispute, but what 
might cause it and how 
it can be affected has 
been open to debate. 
Research clearly shows 
that the birds' homing 
abilities are affected by 
electromagnetic vibrations, but what is important in the research is 
that only very specific vibrations of a particular type are relevant - 
namely square-shaped vibrations in a small frequency range. 

In 1985, Paolo Ioale and Dante Guidarini conducted a series 
of experiments using magnetic fields placed around the heads 
of homing pigeons and surrounding the areas of their cages. 
Their experiment used a variety of types of magnetic wave - sine- 
shaped, triangular and square-shaped waves - but they found the 
pigeons' orientation was only strongly affected by square-shaped 
waves. Studies on the growth of plants have shown that it is the 

A homing pigeon 



square-shaped waves that have the most significant effect, and not 
the sine-shaped waves that most scientists seem to utilise in their 

So how does this help us to investigate whether or not 
electromagnetic waves affect bees? Clearly, what is important is 
not that all electromagnetic waves cause bees to lose their homing 
abilities, but that it is likely that only specific frequencies using 
specific wave shapes cause the problem. 

Do birds use forms of magnetism in order to find their way 
around? It seems obvious that birds use something, otherwise how 
would they find their way around the world with such efficiency? 
But exactly what piece of their body they use has yet to be identified. 
There have been hundreds of scientific papers postulating the 
idea that magnetic fields affect animals, yet the phenomenon has 
remained elusive and is still to this day sometimes treated with 

Why is this? The nature of any scientific experiment is that it 
can only look at the behavioural pattern of the animals in question, 
sometimes producing ambiguous results. Birds are, however, 
completely different. We have known that migratory birds can find 
their way over great distances for a very long time, and the use of an 
internal compass was first suggested back in the 19th century when 
sailors were using similar instruments to find their way across 
oceans. Further, it has been observed that, at certain times of the 
year when they are due to migrate, birds exhibit distinct physical 
and behavioural changes. This is often manifested even when 
a bird is kept in a cage. Very often, this migratory restlessness is 
accompanied by attempts to move in the direction corresponding to 
the seasonal migration route. 

Science has steered itself into a bit of a corner when looking at 
how birds migrate, and it is typical of this area of science, as it is 



with plants, that scientists are still looking for a chemical or physical 
solution to the problem. Current research into birds looks principally 
at two theories: the "magnetic mineral" and the "radical pair model" 
theories. The magnetic mineral theory is based on the universal 
presence of iron-containing compounds in living organisms. This 
supposes that the iron somehow acts as a compass within the 
bird's beak (where it is mainly found) and that this facility is the 
basis of the bird's ability to direct itself while migrating. However, 
in experiments in which birds have been blindfolded in one eye, 
research has shown that covering the right eye caused the birds 
to lose their sense of direction, whereas covering the left one had 
no effect on their migratory skills. This would suggest that some 
structures in the eye are involved in navigation. 

The radical pair model, on the other hand, is based on the 
assumption that the geomagnetic field changes the rate of radical pair 
chemical reactions in a certain light-responsive protein in the bird's 
eye, affecting certain receptors that detect magnetic fields. A lot of 
time has been spent trying to work out the biochemical mechanisms 
underlying how birds and bees actually transfer information within 
their bodies rather than on the damage that is caused by erroneous 
external magnetic forces. It was an attempt to prove the radical 
pair model that threw a giant wrench into the scientific research. 
Experiments on the effect of weak oscillating magnetic fields and 
how they influenced the birds' magnetic compass discovered that 
birds' orientation was disrupted by emitting a magnetic field in a 
variety of different field lengths (vibrations). These results appear to 
disprove the radical pair model as it cannot explain these effects. 

So if these experiments show clearly that one theory does not 
work, you would imagine that all of the research would then go into 
looking at how and why magnetic waves of specific frequencies 
affect birds' behaviour. Sadly, this is again not the case. To quote 



K.V. Kavoldn, a Russian scientist who investigated this area in 

One of these requirements is that if an experimental result 
contradicts the general theory, the experiment should be 
repeated with special attention to all imaginable effects that 
could give the same result - until all of them are, one by one 
excluded. Only then the new phenomenon can be believed 
to exist. 

So let's look at other scientific papers that do not make any 
attempt to understand the biology or chemistry of the problem but 
just look at the observational side of science. If it is seen to happen 
in several experiments, surely it does not matter if we do not have 
a scientific explanation for its occurrence. If the observational 
disagrees with the science, could it not be the science that is at 
fault rather than the observations? If the science does not explain 
the visual results, maybe more time and money should be made 
available to look at alternative ideas on what is causing migrational 
problems within the bird community. It might come as a surprise 
to the scientific community that a very familiar pattern is being 
observed, a pattern of behaviour that is occurring not only in birds, 
but in insects, plants and humans as well. In fact, it might even show 
that the effect is similar for all types of living organisms because, as 
I have previously stated, we all come from the same genetic pool, 
and if something affects one type of living organism, it is likely that 
it will affect all types of living organism. 




I am going to attempt to describe different scientific research projects 
that have looked at measuring different patterns of behaviour 
amongst birds with particular reference to mobile phone masts and 
stations, as this area provides the most compelling evidence that 
there is a direct effect between birds' behaviour and magnetic fields. 
It is my belief that if I recount numerous scientific documents, 
you will start to think that perhaps the observational part of science 
should outweigh the chemical and biological science, and that 
society as a whole should start to open its eyes and base more of its 
behaviour on things that we can see existing rather than on scientific 
experiments that are looking for biological and chemical answers. 


There has been a massive decrease in the house sparrow population 
in the UK and in several western European countries in the last 
few years. In London, there was a 71% decline in the population 
between 1994 and 2002. Studies have shown that the population 
is more affected in urban areas than in the countryside. In 2002, 
the house sparrow was added to the Red List of UK endangered 
species. The same picture can be seen in Brussels, West Berlin and 
The Netherlands. But in rural Scotland and Wales, house sparrows 
have actually been on the increase. 

A number of hypotheses have been put forward to explain 
the population decline of the house sparrow in urban areas, and 
these have all been investigated by scientific studies. Guess what 
these suggestions are? I am sure that if I refer you back to the 
US Congressional report on bees, you might be able to hazard a 
guess. They are almost exactly the same suggestions as the ones put 
forward for the decline of the bee population. In this case, the areas 
of investigation include: 



1. Lack of food; 

2. Pollution from vehicles; 

3. An increased number of predators; 

4. A loss of nesting sites due to building changes; 

5. Pesticides; 

6. Disease transmission. 

What about low-level electromagnetic waves, I hear myself 
screaming? Why are they not on the list? In fact, very few 
investigators have looked at this area, but those who have all 
reported a relationship between house sparrow numbers and the 
electromagnetic waves emitted from mobile telephone transmitters. 

Let's start off with one recent paper that investigated the 
possible effect of radiation from mobile phone base stations on 
the number of breeding house sparrows in Belgium. This study 
was conducted by Joris Everaert and Dirk Bauwens in 2007 and 
looked at 150 locations distributed over six residential areas in East 
Flanders, Belgium. The conclusion they came to was that fewer 
house sparrow males were seen at locations with relatively high 
electric field strength values of mobile phone base stations, and they 
concluded that this therefore supports the notion that long-term 
exposure to higher levels of radiation negatively affects abundance 
or behaviour in the wild. 

Everaert and Bauwens do, however, make the point that their 
study should only be a preliminary one, for a number of reasons. 
Firstly, they visited locations only once so counts were not always 
accurate. Secondly, the study period was short, and thirdly, only 
the radiation from mobile phone base station antennae was 
measured. But most importantly, the authors say they cannot prove 
a relationship as this is only what they technically call a "descriptive 



field study" and not scientific proof. All they can say is that it 
"strengthens the possibility that the relationship is not a spurious 

So let's look at some other reports to see if we can qualify this. 
... Oops, there don't seem to be many. In fact, there appear to be 
only three other studies, carried out in 2005, 2007 and 2009, and 
all by the same author, Alphonso Balmori. His first study found 
that there were significant numbers of white stork nests exposed 
to relatively high electromagnetic radiation. Balmori concluded that 
electromagnetic radiation could interfere with reproduction in wild 
stork populations. 

His second study looked at the population of house sparrows 
in Spain, and his third and largest study, published in 2009 and 
entitled "Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on 
wildlife", was a peer review of all of the evidence he could find in 
this area. This study looked at the evidence for an effect of phone 
masts not only on birds, but on all wildlife. It was a very thorough 
investigation that came to the following conclusions: "...pulsed 
telephony microwave radiation can produce effects especially on 
nervous, cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems". The 
effect caused: 

1. Damage to the nervous system; 

2. Disruption of circadian rhythms; 

3. Changes in heart rate and blood pressure; 

4. Impairment of health and immunity; 

5. Problems in building the nest, impaired fertility and problems 
with the number of eggs, embryonic development, hatching 
percentage and survival of chicks; 

6. Genetic and developmental problems. 



What was it that Balmori discovered in his research that caused 
him to come to these conclusions? He drew on his own research 
into storks back in 2005 to support his view that there was an 
effect, and he also quoted from the research on house sparrows in 
Belgium, to which I referred earlier. One other report he quotes 
from was his Spanish study that looked at the relationship between 
the number of sparrows and the mean electric field strength in the 
area of Valladolid during the period 2002 to 2006. He also drew 
on observational data, such as those available in the UK related to 
sparrows and their decline. The sparrow population in England 
decreased from 24 million to less than 14 million over the last thirty 
years, with 75% of the decline taking place between 1994 and 2002. 
This, Balmori concludes, coincides with the roll-out of mobile 
telephony. But does he have enough evidence to say that mobile 
telephone masts are exclusively the cause of the sparrow or stork 
problems? I would say that the world needs more evidence than this 
before the phone masts are torn down, but it does point the finger 
in their direction. 


This is an area in which there is a good volume of scientific 
evidence as it seems that experiments are easier to conduct in the 
laboratory than they are in the field. Balmori draws on a number of 
these research studies, but in every case he uses expressions such 
as, "...current scientific evidence indicates that prolonged exposure to 
electromagnetic frequencies at levels that can be encountered in the 
environment may affect the immune system function by affecting 
biological processes". I have chosen to emphasise "indicates" and 
"may" as Balmori is not saying that there is proof, only that the 
tests are indications they might be true. He consistently uses words 
such as "looked in general", "might be involved", "studies indicate", 



"may have negative effects", "could become" etc. It is as if a lawyer 
had been through the paper very thoroughly and taken out any areas 
that might cause publication difficulties. When I compare Balmori's 
remarks with those of the scientific papers on which they are based, 
the same vocabulary seems to come up. No-one, it seems, wants to 
put their head on the block and say one way or another that their 
research confirms a fact - instead, all of the research papers use 
terms like "seems to indicate" and "further research is required". 

One paper investigating 2,500 chick embryos showed that 
exposure to weak magnetic fields increased the abnormality rate in 
the early development of white leghorn chick embryos, but it still 
used the expression "can increase the abnormality" even though 
their studies proved that it does affect them. 


One study conducted by three Greek scientists in 2004 on the fruit 
fly Drosophila melanogaster found that a pulsed radio frequency 
from mobile telephones at 900 MHz modulated by the human 
voice decreased the reproductive capacity of the insect by 50-60%, 
whereas a non-modulated (non-speaking) field decreased it by 15- 
20%. In this experiment, the insects were exposed to the mobile 
phone antenna for six minutes a day during the first two or five 
days of their adult lives. The authors concluded that mobile phone 
technology has a direct effect on the gonadal development of the 
insects and thus its reproductive capabilities. 

Why is this scary? It's because the cellular processes are largely 
identical in insect and mammalian cells. Can I refer you to Chapter 
7 on J.C. Bose, which states that, behaviourally, plants and animals 
are the same? Well, you may be surprised to know that insects and 
animals are behaviourally the same as well. In fact, insects are shown 
to be more resistant to electromagnetic fields than mammals, so if 



something is happening in insects, it is more likely that the effect 
is greater in mammals, particularly with ionising electromagnetic 

In the concluding paragraphs of the Greek report, the authors 
write that a mobile phone signal with a frequency of 217 Hz can 
possibly disrupt cell function, which will consequently "affect the 
reproductive capacity of a living organism" (my emphasis). Ouch! No 
more kids for me then. The researchers then go on to say: 

Although we cannot simply draw a parallel from our results to 
possible corresponding effects on humans, we think that our 
results imply the need for prudent avoidance of exposure to GSM 
[mobile communications] radiation and the cautious use of 
mobile phones. Because the exposure levels in our experiments 
are within the current IRPA-ICNIRP [International Radiation 
Protection Association-International Commission on Non-Ionizing 
Radiation Protection] exposure limits, these results possibly suggest 
a reconsideration of the existing exposure criteria toward a direction 
to include also nonthermal biological effects. 

Double ouch! This article was written in 2004, and the world has 
obviously not paid any attention to it. 


I have always wondered how birds fly and fish swim in such tight 
formation. On many wildlife television programmes, I often see 
schools of fish in their tens of thousands swimming in amazing 
synchronised patterns within millimeters of other fish, yet they 
never seem to swim into each other. Large flocks of starlings can 
perform complex flying manoeuvres within five milliseconds. How 
can the birds, each at a different location in the flock, receive and 
react to signals in such a short time? 



The answer 

was again provided by 
Ulrich Warnke, from 
his research into 
the electromagnetic 
properties of birds 
and insects. He first 
looked at whether 

A flock of starlings 

between birds was 

transferred by sound but found that this was not possible as "it 
would require more time and visual observation of a lead animal if it 
is blocked by other animals". He therefore conducted research based 
on the hypothesis that the flying manoeuvers were coordinated by 
electromagnetic signals: 

Such a signal, propagating at approximately the speed of light, 
could reach all individuals at the same time and independent 
of their position. This hypothesis appears more plausible when 
taking into consideration that thefying animals are highly 
electro-statically charged. 

In his recent publication, Birds, Bees and Mankind, published in 
2009, Warnke goes into detail as to how birds and fish manage 
to communicate with each other so quickly in order to coordinate 
their group activities - I've added emphasis to highlight what is 
important to my argument here: 

We were able to record by oscilloscope that the electrical f eld 
caused by the aggregation of animals resulted in a predominantly 
positive overall electrostatic f eld ... These data allow us to conclude 



that flocks of small birds flying at a height of about 40 meters 
are electrically charged to more than 6 000 Volts. We can only 
speculate about the type of coded signals given for direction 
changing manoeuvers. It appears that each individual bird has a 
set beat frequency and amplitude that is corrected immediately it 
weakens, by changing the direction of flight. 

Electromagnetic fields therefore have a role to play in formation 
flying of birds as well. They serve as orientation and navigation 
aids and determine the position of a single animal in the flock. 
Depending especially on wing width, wing span and body length, 
our observations and calculations show that the biophysical 
relationships influence the species-typical V-formation flying of 
flocks. Computer calculations of the flight order allow us to predict 
natural formation flights. And photographic records, vice-versa, 
also agree well with computer simulations. The observations 
demonstrate a unique information and orientation system of the 
animal kingdom. But they also explain why this is destroyed by the 
interference of technically generated electrical and magnetic fields. 

So, again, nature chooses to use the electromagnetic fields 
emitted naturally by the earth, this time to coordinate movements 
between living organisms. No doubt all animals communicate 
using this technique in various ways - probably humans as well 
- but maybe we have lost touch with this ability, or we have it and 
don't recognise it! 

My objective in this book is purely to get people to try and change 
the way they look at life and interpret science in ways that seem to 
be logical, rather than being persuaded by science that there is only 
one answer. In this particular chapter, I have attempted to show 
that the decline in bee populations is one common problem that 
is caused by factors affecting all wildlife, and that scientists should 
stop being so parochial in their solutions to these problems. If any 



scientists investigating the cause of bees dying out happened to 
read Balmori's article, maybe they would change their stance and 
develop hives that would protect bees from any outside effect of 
electromagnetic waves, thus saving the farming community and 
creating a new business at the same time. All that is required is to 
cover the bee hives with a protective metal film that stops the hive 
being contaminated by the external waves being transmitted to it. 
This would be a very simple answer to the bee problem, and one that 
I seriously hope will be put into practice. 







Introduction To 


- The Invisible Invader 




by scientists, for reasons only they can explain. However, I am 
pleased to say that the great juggernaut of science is finally turning 
towards a few research papers that are incrementally pushing the 
evidence towards its obvious conclusion. Electromagnetic waves 
affect our biological make-up, thereby suggesting that they are, in 
part, a significant factor in the exponential growth of illnesses such 
as diabetes, chronic fatigue, autism and multiple sclerosis. 

Electromagnetic waves are the waves that you can't see but are 
now everywhere around us, transmitting radio signals, television 
signals, mobile telephone signals and wi-fi. How do we know they 
are there? Simply because you can now pick up a mobile telephone 
almost anywhere in the world and make a telephone call. Somewhere 
out there in the invisible landscape, a vibration is being emitted 
so that your mobile phone can pick up that vibration and connect 
with a satellite in space that will relay your message via a chain of 
satellites to another mobile phone half way across the world. 

If each of these vibrations of electromagnetic waves were 
coloured so that you could see them, I would reckon that you would 
not be able to see very much else as they would completely cloud 
your vision. You would not see clear lines of trees if you were in the 
park, just wave after wave of coloured light coming from everyone 
who was carrying a mobile phone, plus all of the waves of light 
coming from nearby houses and offices, and not forgetting the 
waves being sent through the air from TV and radio transmitters. 

nimals, plants, humans and insects have one thing in 
common: they are all living organisms, and as such they 
will all be affected to various degrees by electromagnetic 
waves. This statement is sadly not universally accepted 



We are therefore very lucky that we cannot see these vibrational 

So here is the BIG dilemma, one that pains me to explain it. 
Unless we decide to take technology back to where we were fifty 
years ago, there is no possibility that anything is going to change. I, 
for one, am not advocating that as I am a realist. I do not see how 
anyone would vote for a change in technology that would ban the 
mobile phone and internet service or reduce the amount of satellite 
television being used. So of course this is not going to happen, 
but the price we will have to pay is also pretty terrible. I think that 
there is good reason to recognise and evaluate the effects, however 
negative, of the technology which is now part of our lives. 


According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 30 million 
people across the globe in 1985 had diabetes - 0.6% of the world's 
population. This had increased to 171 million (2.8% of the global 
population) by 2000, and it is expected to more than double to 366 
million (4.5% of the world's population) by 2030. Doctors attribute 
this rise in diabetes to poor diet and limited exercise resulting in 
obesity, and seldom look for causes other than lifestyle and genetics. 
But is this explanation good enough to provide the answers to the 
following newspaper headline in 2010: "One in ten Chinese adults 
are diabetics, study finds"? The article went on to say, "...with 92 
million diabetics, China is now home to the most cases worldwide, 
overtaking India. The change is happening very rapidly." 

There appears to be only one major cause - diet. But have the 
Chinese and Indian diets changed that much? Is it not possible 
that this diabetic catastrophe has as much to do with access to new 
technology as it does to the food they eat? Indeed, in the Far East, the 
diet has barely changed over the last century, most of the population 



still eating a traditional diet. Very few of them eat Western-style 
food with its added salt and sugar content. This is particularly true 
for members of the rural community in China, who survive on an 
income of as little as $2 a day and have no access to Western-style 
foods. These people are suffering from diabetes at a greater rate 
than their urban counterparts. Unless there is evidence that their 
diet has changed significantly, this cannot be the exclusive reason 
why there is such an epidemic in new cases of the disease. There 
has to be another factor. 

One scientific paper suggests another cause for diabetes, one 
which has been brought upon us all inadvertently - so-called "dirty 
electricity", or what I would call man-made electromagnetic fields. 
In a study published in the journal Electromagnetic Biology and 
Medicine, 2008, Magda Havas cites overwhelming evidence that 
there should be a shift in the way we look at diabetes. In addition to 
the current type 1 and type 2 diabetes, she suggests that there should 
be a third type, which is exacerbated or induced by exposure to 
electromagnetic frequencies. The following case studies were taken 
from her report, and if you are reading this and have been told you 
have diabetes, it should make you think very carefully about how 
you might be able to reduce your blood sugar level without needing 
to be dependent on drugs. 

In a study following a 51-year-old man with type 2 diabetes over 
a one-week period, it was found that changes in his blood glucose 
levels were not related to his food intake, but were directly related 
to his working environment. The more he worked on his computer, 
the more his levels rose, and the levels quickly receded as soon as 
he walked away from the computer. An astonishing fact, however, 
was that the doctor's office where he had his tests, directly affected 
his diabetes levels. On entering the doctor's clinic, his blood sugar 
levels were tested and found to be prediabetic. Then, after sitting 



in the doctor's waiting area for only twenty minutes, his blood 
sugar level had risen to that of a type 2 diabetic. He then left the 
building and waited in the car park, an environment with no 
obvious electromagnetic fields, for a further twenty minutes. Upon 
measuring his levels immediately after the rest period, it was found 
that the glucose levels had gone back to normal. So what was in 
the doctor's clinic that could have made the difference? Dr Havas 
alleges that is was the five computers kicking out electromagnetic 
fields that had caused the changes. The conclusion one can draw 
from this is that if you are going to test a patient for diabetes, do it in 
an electromagnetically clean environment, to prevent misdiagnosis 
and to accurately determine the severity of the disease. 

A second experiment involved a 57-year-old woman with type 
2 diabetes who was taking no medication for her diabetes yet 
managed to control her plasma glucose levels simply by exercise and 
a strict diet. In this study, she was tested throughout the day. The 
results showed that exercising by walking caused her blood sugar 
levels to drop from a mean of 11. 8 to 7.2 mmol/L. However, if she 
practised the same amount of walking on an exercise machine, her 
blood sugar levels actually rose from 10 to 11.7 mmol/L. What could 
have caused this? It is suggested the large electrical motor used to 
generate the moving tread kicked out such a large electromagnetic 
field that it caused the blood sugar level to rise. How ironic that 
doctors recommend exercise for patients thinking that it will always 
help them - if this exercise is carried out indoors, on a running 
machine, it seems it will in fact have completely the opposite effect. 
So if you have diabetes, do not go to a gym with a high number 
of electrically powered exercise machines as the gym environment 
could be doing you enough damage to outweigh the positive effects 
of the exercise. 

Another study was conducted on a 28-year-old man with type 2 



diabetes who found it very difficult to reduce his blood sugar levels 
despite the fact that he was taking medication three times a day. 
In an attempt to reduce his levels, he introduced four GS (Graham 
Stetzer) filters into his home. GS filters are an invention that 
supposedly reduces the amount of electromagnetism in a localised 
area, such as your living room or bedroom; they simply plug into the 
socket. Within three days of introducing these filters into his home, 
the man's blood sugar levels dropped significantly to an amount 
that he not been able to achieve using just medication. 

What I believe these case studies show, quite clearly, is that 
environmental factors play a significant role in the likely causes of 
illnesses, particularly diabetes. If one thing is to be learned from 
the studies described here, it is that we should all immediately go 
out and buy a pack of GS filters and stick them in our homes. After 
reading Havas's article, it was the first thing I did, and I now have 
them in every room at home. In one of my offices, the reading 
went down from 240 to 40 GS units as soon as I put the filter in. 
The office has five computers - I had never thought about them 
before, but as soon as I observed the change in the filter reading, it 
awakened my thoughts on how large and prevalent these types of 
waves are. 

Anecdotal success of GS filters has been shown in one school 
in Wisconsin that was supposedly diagnosed with "sick building 
syndrome", whatever that encompassed. According to the district 
nurse, once the GS filters were installed, only three of the thirty- 
seven students in the school who used inhalers on a daily basis 
subsequently required their inhalers, and then they only needed 
them for exercise-induced asthmas. GS filters were also placed 
in a school in Toronto, and approximately 50% of the teachers 
documented an improvement in their own energy, performance, 
mood and/or health, in a single-blind study. Student behaviour, 



especially at the elementary level, also improved. The symptoms that 
changed were the ones we associate with attention deficit disorder 
(ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). 

Following on from her studies on diabetes, Havas then 
investigated whether electromagnetic fields had an effect on other 
illnesses. It was not much of a surprise that the few case studies 
that she completed showed similar results to those for diabetes. In 
one study on multiple sclerosis, a teacher in Wisconsin suffered 
from double vision, cognitive difficulties and memory issues. She 
managed to persuade her school to introduce GS filters, and within 
days her symptoms disappeared. Havas attempted to analyse other 
people with multiple sclerosis, with similar positive results. One 
man aged twenty-seven noticed improvements within twenty-four 
hours and steadily improved over the following weeks. He suffered 
from common symptoms of multiple sclerosis: he could not walk 
without the use of an aid, he had tremors, and he suffered from 
exceptional tiredness. Three days after he installed GS filters in 
his home, the study discovered that his symptoms had begun to 
disappear, only returning when he went shopping in the local 
centre. The symptoms then disappeared three hours after he had 
rested at home within the confines of the GS filters. 

If these case studies are to be believed, what other illnesses 
is electromagnetic radiation causing? What are the most recent 
increases in illnesses that are occurring in the West besides those 
of multiple sclerosis and diabetes? Two illnesses that I personally 
am aware of are chronic fatigue/fibromyalgia and hay fever. The 
prevalence of these two illnesses is growing at a rate similar to 
that suggested for diabetes by the WHO. Could they be all related 
to the same problem - dirty electricity? If this is the case, surely 
the governing bodies know about it and have the situation under 
control. Well, yes and no. The WHO is aware that appliances emit 



low-level electromagnetic pollution but believes this to be at such 
a low level as to be insignificant. However, I believe the WHO 
needs to change its attitude very soon, as more and more scientific 
studies are reporting biological and health effects associated with 
electromagnetic pollution well below WHO guidelines. 

Studies so far that show a direct link between electromagnetic 
pollution and heath include the following: 


Ahlborn (2000) 
Havas (2000) 

Li et al. (2002) 
Neutra (2002) 
Kundi et al. (2004) 
Alpeteretal. (1995), 
Michelozzi et al. (2002) 

Liburdy et al. (1993) 

Lai and Singh (2005) 
Blackman et al. (1985) 
Havas (2008) 

Biological effects 

Greater risk of childhood leukaemia 

Greater risk of various cancers after occupational 

exposure to low-frequency electrical and magnetic fields 


Lou Gehrig's disease 

Brain tumours associated with mobile phone use 

Cancers and symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity 
(for people living near mobile phone and broadcast 

Laboratory studies reporting an increased proliferation of 

human breast cancer cells 

Single- and double-strand DNA breaks 

Changes in calcium flux 

Changes in plasma glucose level leading to diabetes 

I am not the only person to suggest that there has not been 
enough research in this field - many scientists believe this too. 
In a paper that reviewed all of the recent research in this area, the 
conclusion was that the "literature is scant ... The health effects of 
this type of exposure on epidemiological research on biological and 
health effects are lacking even though human exposure is actually 



increasing." Quite! So why is more not being done? In a paper 
written in 2001 that looked at the effects of electric and magnetic 
fields at the frequency of 50 and 60 Hz - that of electricity - the 
conclusion was that "the current data available do not show that 
these fields can be dangerous for health. More particularly, no 
consistent and conclusive proof shows that residential exposure 
to electric and magnetic fields can be responsible for cancer, 
undesirable neurobehavioral effects, or effects on reproduction or 
development. Five years later, no new data has been published to 
change this position." 

In a study in 2008 that reviewed all of the papers written on the 
subject and used a meta-analytic technique to assess the statistical 
likelihood of cherry-picked papers, the authors concluded that "this 
review showed that the large majority of individuals who claim to be 
able to detect low level EMF [electromagnetic fields] are not able to 
do so under double-blind conditions. If such individuals exist, they 
represent a small minority and have not been identified yet." I was 
not sure whether to laugh or cry at this study. 

Another paper, written in 2010 by psychiatrists in London, 
concludes, after having reviewed all the scientific papers, that 
"despite the conviction of EMF sufferers that their symptoms 
are triggered by exposure to EMF fields, repeated experiments 
have been unable to replicate this phenomenon under controlled 
conditions ... there is no robust evidence to support the theory that 
exposure to EMF is responsible for triggering symptoms". I find this 
surprising. To me, it is saying that no matter what scientific papers 
you read, even if they have been conducted in the most professional 
way using perfectly executed double-blind studies, you can simply 
ignore as wrong any reported fact that there is a relationship. 

So, of course, I had to search out this particular paper to see how 
many studies the authors had included in their bibliography and 



then analyse all of these studies to try to see how they came to their 
conclusion. On reading the paper, the reason soon became apparent. 
Remember that the paper was written by psychiatrists, so it was 
of no surprise that, hidden away in the document, they admitted 
that, in all the studies, "we did not extract data concerning EEG 
measurements, blood chemistry results or objectively measured 
cognitive function". Of course they didn't as they were psychiatrists; 
what was the point of them looking for results showing actual 
physical changes in the body? No, they only looked at changes that 
were psychological in nature. 

This is all very strange because, after I had read this article, I 
went looking for papers that researched the 50 and 60 Hz frequency 
levels. These are the levels that are used in electricity in both the 
US and the UK. The first paper I found was from 1982, and this 
looked at the effects of a 60 Hz frequency on bone growth in rats. 
Its conclusion was clearly that the rats exposed to a field of 60 Hz 
showed throughout their life "enhanced bone growth in the long 
bones causing increased length and mass". Did the government not 
put two and two together? - They know that you can repair human 
bones using electrical currents as the process is used commonly in 
hospitals around the world, so it should be no surprise that exposure 
to certain Hz levels can cause bone growth in different animals at 
different frequencies. Wouldn't it be beneficial if they treated all 
individual animals differently and tried to find out which animals 
were affected by this exposure, as not all animals are the same? 
Then, when they conducted their experiments, they should not be 
working solely on rats but on a cluster of different animals to prove 
that different animals behave differently in response to the same 

I then found a study showing that people were highly allergic 
to a wide range of electromagnetic fields. This study, conducted 



in 1991, reported that a group of patients who were exposed to a 
variety of different frequencies reacted to them in the following 
numbers: 75% reacted to 1 Hz, 69% to 2.5 Hz, 69% to 5 Hz, 69% 
to 10 Hz, 69% to 20 Hz and 69% to 10 KHz, and many reacted 
to the 50 and 60 Hz levels that the US government had analysed. 
The conclusion was that, for any given individual, susceptibility to 
electrical frequencies may develop at any frequency, and produce 

The symptoms of the exposure were neurological (tingling, 
sleepiness, headache, dizziness, unconsciousness), musculoskeletal 
(pain, tightness, spasm, fibrillation), cardiovascular (palpitations, 
flushing, tachycardia, oedema), oral/respiratory (pressure in the 
ears, dental pains, tightness in the chest, shortness of breath), 
gastrointestinal (nausea, belching) and dermal (itching, burning, 
prickling pain). Two of the patients had such a severe reaction 
(unconsciousness and severe itching) to the weak fields, and 
short exposure time, that they were given intravenous vitamin 
C, magnesium and oxygen to remedy the prolonged and delayed 
reactions. To me, this underlines the fact that the body reacts in a 
myriad of different ways to the same thing. 

There were approximately twenty-five completely different 
reactions to electromagnetic waves from a variety of different 
wavelengths, producing a complete variety of reactions. As most 
experiments do not list all of these reactions and just look for one 
specific outcome, it is probably no surprise that they do not find what 
they are looking for and do not show what is actually happening. If 
these patients could not tell us what was wrong, how many reactions 
would it be possible to see from cutting them up and testing their 
blood changes or bone sizes - I would suggest none. So it is vital 
that more experiments are done on humans rather than animals to 
ascertain the effects of low-level waves. 



One point raised was that the same person can react to different 
frequencies at different times depending upon the medications they 
are taking. One patient with asthma was sensitive to high-power 
voltage lines as well as low-voltage house wiring, experiencing 
muscle spasms in the head, neck, arms and legs. This patient was 
also sensitive to dust, weeds, dust mites and some foods. He reacted 
in tests to 2.5 and 60 Hz and 5 and 50 KHz with tightness in the chest. 
He then received an antigen shot to neutralise his hypersensitivity 
reactions. Five months later, he was completely unreactive to any 
electromagnetic frequency. 


Maybe the problem in researching the negative effects of 
electromagnetism is that scientists are confused. This whole area is 
controversial because there is a fundamental misunderstanding of 
the underlying science. It is not true that if you plug a cable in and 
wrap it around your body, this will cure your cancer. Why would it; 
what has it got to do with cancer? It would be just as likely to cause 
tooth decay or be the cause of the common cold. Perhaps wrapping 
yourself in these cables might affect the body in some way but not 
in the ways that the scientists are investigating. The cables, I believe, 
are more likely to affect the body at the level of diabetes rather than 
cancer, but research grants are focused on cancer rather than on 

Why would you conclude that if an experiment failed to create 
cancer, all forms of electrical stimulation were safe? As one science 
paper in 2007 said, "discrepancies in this field reflect the variability 
in the magnetic field strengths and frequencies that have been 
applied to these models, thus results between studies are hard 
to compare". Of most importance to me personally was their 
discovery that "our findings indicate that matrix dynamics and cell 



metabolism/ energy balance are processes which are affected by the 
electromagnetic field application". If you recall from this book's 
Introduction, I became interested in all of these things because my 
son had chronic fatigue syndrome, and this fatigue can be referred 
to as an energy imbalance. If these scientists are to be believed, it 
could be that the low-level electromagnetic fields being kicked out 
by all sorts of electrical apparatus are causing the elevated levels of 
chronic fatigue that we are seeing throughout the world. If such 
machines affected the cells' ability to produce mitochondria, which 
create the energy that the body can use, it would mean that the body 
was not creating enough energy. What an alarming possibility, that 
my son's illness, and all his and our family's suffering, could have 
been caused by technology! 


So do mobile telephones cause ill health? The International 
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the 
International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES) and 
the WHO are assuring us that there is no proven health risk 
and that the present safety limits protect all mobile phone users. 
However, a study in 2010 reviewed the underlying science and 
concluded that it was not much use for drawing such conclusions. 
It suggested that the majority of the evidence had come from in vitro 
laboratory studies, which are of very limited use for determining 
real-life health risk. It also alleged that there was a lack of human 
volunteer studies that would demonstrate whether the human body 
responded at all to mobile phone radiation. The authors believe that 
the available scientific evidence is insufficient to prove the reliability 
of the current safety standards. Therefore, they recommend " 
use precaution when dealing with mobile phones and whenever 
possible and feasible, to limit body exposure to this radiation". 



An earlier study, by Stopczyk in 2005, had already shown that 
900 MHz electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phone masts 
affected the activity of elements within the human blood platelets, 
which are involved in blood clotting. This report concluded that the 
"oxidative stress associated with exposure to microwaves may be 
the reason for many adverse changes in the cell and may cause a 
number of systemic disturbances in the human body". 

A conference in Italy arranged by the International Commission 
for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) in20o6 suggested the following 
solutions to help solve the problems caused by our electronic 
pollution. (For a list of the scientists who signed their name to this 
paper, take a minute to look at the bibliography in the ICEMS paper 
and in this book). I have quoted the first five points here as they 
make alarming reading. 

7. More evidence has accumulated suggesting that there are 
adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to 
electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields, at current exposure 
levels. What is needed, but not yet realized, is a comprehensive, 
independent, and transparent examination of the evidence pointing 
to this emerging, potential public health issue. 

2. Resources for such an assessment are grossly inadequate despite 
the explosive growth of technologies for wireless communications as 
well as the huge ongoing investment in power transmission. 

3. There is evidence that present sources of funding bias the analysis 
and interpretation of research findings towards rejection of evidence 
of possible public health risks. 

4. Arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect 
biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of 
scientific opinion. 



5. Based on our review of the science, biological effects can occur 
from exposures to both extremely low frequency fields (ELF EMF) 
and radiation frequency fields (RF EMF). Epidemiological and in 
vivo as well as in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates that 
exposure to some ELF EMF can increase cancer risk in children and 
induce other health problems in both children and adults. Further, 
there is accumulating epidemiological evidence indicating an 
increased brain tumor risk from long-term use of mobile phones, 
the first RF EMF that has started to be comprehensively studied. 
Epidemiological and laboratory studies that show increased risks 
for cancers and other diseases from occupational exposures to EMF 
cannot be ignored. 

This conference took place in 2006 and several years have now 
passed. Their advice has apparently fallen on deaf ears. 


There have been a few studies on the relationship between cell 
phone use and semen quality in recent years. One investigation 
measured the level of semen of three hundred and fifty men 
who were attending an infertility clinic and divided them up into 
four different groups depending upon their hourly usage of mobile 
telephones per day. The results showed that a greater use of mobiles 
diminished semen quality by decreasing the sperm count. The authors 
concluded that mobile phones play a role in male infertility, the 
mechanisms behind which are completely unknown. 

This conclusion was backed up by an earlier study on three 
hundred and seventy-one men showing that the prolonged use of cell 
phones may have negative effects on sperm motility characteristics. 
Again, the men involved in the study were attending an infertility 
clinic. The research concluded there were significant decreases in the 
proportion of rapidly progressive motile sperm with increases in the 



daily transmission time of the phones. 

Are these two tests not of major significance for us all? As soon as 
I started this line of enquiry, I told my teenage children to reduce their 
mobile phone usage if they planned on having children. Although the 
research did not go on to claim that the sperm level goes back to normal 
after reducing the amount of usage on the mobile phones, I hope for 
my sons' sakes it is not a permanent effect, as they are on the phone all 
the time. 

These findings suggest that a high number of men will have great 
problems in fathering a child due to the widespread use of mobile 
phones. In the UK alone, the sperm count has fallen by 2g% over the last 
decade. Mobile phone usage is not the only suggested cause of a low 
sperm count - other reasons such as weight, stress, smoking and 
pollution have also been put forward as a cause of this condition. 
What worries me most, though, is that unless you happened to read a 
newspaper on the days following the release of the studies mentioned 
here, you would not be aware of this danger. Could there have been a 
more urgent call for action than this in any scientific paper? The clear 
implication is that unless we get rid of mobile phones, they will have a 
damaging affect on our biological make-up. 

Strangely, for such an important document, this research paper 
was very hard to find. I only came across it by accident while searching 
for other documents relating to birds. There are very few references 
to it, and I could not find even one newspaper that had picked up on 
the story. This is probably due to the fact that the article in question 
was printed in the magazine Pathophysiology, which I doubt is on many 
journalists' reading lists. 


In the following few pages, I am going to run briefly through 



the many scientific experiments that have investigated the effect 
of electromagnetic fields on plants and animals, look at what is 
happening and try to work out why we have not been told by our 
governments that this is a problem for our health. If plants and 
animals are affected, we as living organisms are also going to be 

Much of what I am going to be talking about is based upon 
the size of the frequency, or, to put it another way, the size of the 
vibration and how fast it is vibrating - low-pitched sounds vibrate 
slowly, and high-pitched sounds vibrate quickly. To put it into 
perspective, a frequency of i Hz (cycles per second) is very, very 
slow, and i kilohertz (KHz) is a frequency 1,000 times faster than 
i Hz. Signals that come in from space emitted by distant planets are 
often in the very low-frequency band, such as 60 Hz. The light that 
we pick up via our eyes is in the range of 400-790 terahertz (THz, 
with 1 THz being a million million Hz), that is, many millions of 
times faster than the slow waves from space. Microwaves range 
in frequency between 300 million Hz (300 megahertz, written as 
300 MHz) and 300 billion Hz (300 gigahertz, or 300 GHz). 

But what effect, if any, are these waves having on our bodies? 
The problem for science has been the lack of information on the 
mechanism by which microwaves influence our biological systems. 
The standard view is that microwaves only have one effect on living 
organisms and that is via heat. So if you can measure the change 
in heat in the living organism and discover that this is small to 
negligible, you will be perfectly happy in the knowledge that the 
microwave will have no effect on the biological living organism. 
If, however, you were to show that there is another effect on the 
living organism apart from heating, a detrimental effect, this could 
open up another huge area of research, one that could show how 
potentially damaging the microwave could be. 

Prior to the 21st century, there had been very few investigations 



into the effects of radio and microwave frequencies on plants. Most 
of these had been carried out in the 1960s and were based on the 
science of increasing crop growth via improved germination, but 
the results were not significant enough for scientists to pursue the 
matter further. This area of science I have covered in the section 
on how to increase plant growth via vibrations (see Chapter 4). 
To summarise that section quickly, the reason why all of the early 
experiments failed was because the scientists did not understand the 
basic principles of botany, in that every plant is different and if you 
attempt to put one frequency out to multiple plants and expect them 
all to react the same, your results will be completely inaccurate. It is 
like playing rock music to a hundred people all aged one, two, three, 
four, up to one hundred years old and asking them for their reaction 
- they will obviously be different. It's a similar situation with plants. 

In 2005, researchers set out to investigate the effect of 
electromagnetic waves of 400, 900 and 1900MHz on the growth 
pattern of the plant duckweed. In this experiment at least, they 
attempted to utilise three different wavelengths to see what the 
reaction would be. It is not surprising that the three different 
wavelengths had a different effect - certain frequencies will affect 
the plant more than others simply because it has its own natural 
vibrational level. If, for instance, the plant naturally vibrates at a 
level of 300 Hz, the electromagnetic wave that is closest to this value 
will cause the plant to react more than the one furthest from it. 

In this duckweed experiment, the scientists played around with 
three variables: the strength of the signals, the time that the plants 
were exposed to them and the actual frequency themselves. The 
outcome was that some combinations of these parameters caused 
the plants to slow their growth levels significantly, whereas others 
caused no significant decrease. Most of the changes in the plants 
were very small - around only the 10% mark - and in scientific 



terms this is not significant. My problem here is that I would like to 
know how long the experiments lasted and what long-term effects 
this original small 10% had on the plant. In this experiment, the 
test ran for a whopping twenty-four hours, yes that's all, just a day. 
The experiment was looking at short-term changes that could be 
measured, and even with such a short-term exposure, the plants 
were affected. So why did the researchers not look for long-term 
changes in the plants, say over a few years. Is this of no interest to 

A review of the bio-effects of microwaves in 2002 looked at 
scientific evidence for the effects of microwaves and found that, in 
plants, the microwaves "...athermally induced different biological 
effects by changing the structures by differentially partitioning the 
ions , altering the rate and or direction ofbiochemical reactions " . S ince 
2002, there have been many different scientific papers reporting 
on microwave irradiation. Why? - Because it is big business. Many 
people have discovered that if you zap fruit and vegetables with 
specific frequencies and wave shapes of microwaves, it is possible 
to increase the products' shelf life so that the fruit or veg will stay 
fresh longer on supermarket shelves. This process of decreasing the 
growth rate of yeast through microwave radiation was known as far 
back as 1994 when Dardanoni reduced the growth rate of the yeast 
Candida albicans by 15% and increased its growth by 25% by using 
different continuous radiation levels. 


More worryingly, Pakhomov in 2001 found that the human body 
absorbs significantly more electromagnetic radiation when the 
frequency exceeds about 15 MHz. The absorption rate varies for 
different parts of the body, as it should, as each organ vibrates at a 
unique frequency, and the microwave will only affect those which 

2 33 


are stimulated by that specific microwave signal. The heart, for 
instance, might vibrate at a level that is affected at 10 MHz, whereas 
the liver could be affected by a frequency of, say, 24 MHz. In the 
frequency range of 70-100 MHz, the range over which television 
and FM radio are broadcast, the human body acts as an efficient 
radiation antenna absorbing these wavelengths. So we are all 
human TV and radio receptors. Pretty worrying if you suspect that 
being bombarded by TV signals all day every day can't be doing our 
bodies any good at all. 

In 1993, Belyaev found that microwave radiation can in fact 
have a genetic effect by affecting the chromosomal DNA in living 
cells. And already in 1959, Heller and Teixeira-Pinto had reported 
results showing that low-power microwave radiation could produce 
mutations in mammalian cells in insects. In the 1960s and 70s, 
researchers showed that DNA and the protein RNA, which is 
involved in, among other things, making new DNA and proteins, 
absorbed 65-75 GHz radiation, and that microwaves were able to 
interfere with repair mechanisms or even to induce gene mutations 
in bacteria. 

These studies looked at fast frequencies at the microwave level, 
but what about the low-level frequencies? Do they affect us as well? 
If they do, it seems most sensible to assume that all wavelengths 
have an effect on our bodies - some neutral, some positive and some 
negative. Back in 1910, Bose showed that plants are responsive to 
all wavelengths, and if plants are 100% behaviourally identical to 
animals (see Chapter 7), it follows that animals will be responsive to 
all wavelengths as well. 

In 2009, pioneering work by scientists in Canada showed that 
humans are affected by very weak electromagnetic waves with a 
frequency as low as 500 Hz. They studied the effect that low-level 
waves had on brain activity and discovered that, after only five 



minutes of exposure, the brain's activity changed. The difference 
between this study and previous ones was that it was attempting to 
show that low-level microwaves had an effect while the subjects in 
the experiment were at rest. The researchers found that the pulsed 
magnetic waves altered the human electroencephalogram (EEG), at 
rest, specifically within the 8-13 Hz range. 


Most laboratory work is conducted using rats, and that on microwave 
radiation is no exception. There have been several studies on the 
behaviour of rats exposed to different levels of irradiation. A very 
early paper in 1997 looked at the effect that microwave radiation had 
on rats' body temperature. Now, this is a very important experiment 
as one of the major fears of microwave technology is that it will raise 
the body temperature as if we were all being cooked in a microwave 
oven. This is the measure that those in power have studied in order 
to assess the safe levels to which humans can be exposed. So the 
first experiments conducted were a means to establish levels of 
microwave radiation that were safe for human use. Of course, in 
order to change those levels, major new scientific studies would 
have to be carried out to prove that the levels were set too high. As 
you have probably read, not many studies are being conducted, so 
it is very unlikely that the levels first established will be changed 
without significant political will to do so. 

So do rats heat up under exposure to microwave irradiation? 
The 1997 study showed that earlier tests at 700 MHz, a faster signal, 
resulted in little heat increase, but when the rats were exposed to 
radiation of about half that amount, 300 MHz, the heart rate, body 
temperature and blood pressure were significantly elevated. These 
levels are referred to as sub-resonance exposures. Most studies on 
microwave radiation have investigated the thermal effect of microwave 

2 35 


radiation, and almost all of the studies are looking at the effect that 
this has on cancer. As I said, very little work is being done on the non- 
thermal effects on the immune system. The National Research Council 
examined these non-thermal effects and stated that: 

...the connections among the various experimental findings and 
the theoretical constructs do not yet lead to a comprehensive 
conceptual structure for the reported phenomena sufficient to 
enable an evaluation of the significance of the theories. 

So it is going to be hard to change their opinion, much more 
research will be needed. 

One early study that the National Research Council looked at, 
and is frequently referred to, was conducted in 1996 and considered 
the reproductive effect of chronic microwave radiation. This study 
gave the rats a huge blast of microwave radiation for one hour 
every day, up to fifty-two days. The level was as high as 9,450 MHz. 
C ompare that with the previous experiment of 3 o o M H z and you will 
appreciate how high that is. It was not surprising to learn that these 
massive exposures to microwave radiation significantly reduced 
the rats' ability to reproduce. It was these and similar studies that 
guided the authorities to make sure that workers were not exposed 
to high levels of radiation, and it was primarily this fear, rather than 
the fear of low-level radiation, that affected the authorities' decision 
to create their safe levels of exposure. 

One study that was published in 2009 by researchers in India 
showed that chronic exposure to 2,450 MHz radiation altered the 
thyroid hormone levels and behaviour of male rats. It demonstrated 
that, following chronic exposure, the rats were hyperactive and 
aggressive, and a change was shown in the blood levels of the 
thyroid hormones T3 and T4, which had been shown in previous 



experiments to have a relationship to aggression. The result is 
much more significant when you consider that these lower levels 
of radiation affect the levels of thyroid hormones as well as the 
emotional reactivity of the rats. The question is, how low can the 
microwave levels go before they stop affecting the thyroid gland? If 
they affect the gland at 2,450 MHz, maybe they also affect them at 
24.5 Hz but more gradually. Another study in 2009 did in fact look 
at lower levels and found that long-term exposure to frequencies as 
low as 915 MHz caused "increased damage in blood leukocytes of 
the exposed rats". 


The then-editor of the influential magazine Electromagnetic Biology 
and Medicine, A. Liboff, wrote an introduction to a conference held 
in 2007 into new ideas in this field. In the April conference held at 
the University of Bologna, a set of scientific papers investigated the 
effects, if any, of a new device called the SEQEX. Interestingly, the 
reason for the scientific community trying this product was that the 
manufacturer had sent them a free sample - it was this simple piece 
of marketing that encouraged the scientific community to look at its 
potential. This machine utilises one key piece of technology, ion 
cyclotron resonance, which is used to accelerate charged particles, 
or ions. 

Eleven papers were presented at the conference. One looked at 
the side effects of chemotherapy and found that applying extremely 
low-frequency electromagnetic fields using the SEQEX machine 
reduced the body's oxidative stress and thus alleviated that side effect 
of chemotherapy. When combined with a diet rich in antioxidant 
agents, further improvements occurred. Other papers showed 
that a treatment using the SEQEX reduced levels of cholesterol; 



it also improved keratoconus, a non-inflammatory degenerative 
disorder of the cornea that mainly affects young people; it stabilised 
cholesterol level and blood pressure; it caused improvements in 
autism; it improved the treatment of non-cystoid macular oedema 
diabetic disease; it reduced pain in rheumatoid arthritis, arthritis 
and osteoporosis; and it stabilised muscular sclerosis and chronic 
pulmonary disease. 

I want to quote from one of the papers as, having been aware 
of the pain that parents suffer from having autistic children, I was 
completely overwhelmed by the results of one of the studies that 
showed amazing results for eight children suffering from autism: 

Within the first five treatments, the children had accentuated 
the stereotypes and showed internal hyper stimulation with 
elimination of great amounts of parasites. Parents reported 

finding in the faeces something like "colouful leaves". All 
the children produced smelly faeces, urines of darker colour, 
also very smelly. But nearly all seemed to demonstrate more 
attention and interest in their surroundings. Within ten 
therapies, and re-programming the therapeutic cards, the 
children substantially changed the relationship with their 
relatives. At school, the teachers said that the children were 
unrecognizable. The physical therapist, the speech pathologist 
and the doctors who aided with psycho-linguistic rehabilitation 

found many changes. Three of the eight began to relate with 
their school friends and to go to the toilet by themselves. The 
stereotypes had diminished and the children demonstrated 
interest for games differently from the obsessive way they had 
done before. 

All of the children showed less opposition to their parents 
and followed orders with little or no difficulty. One key indicator 
was the comments by mothers. They told of the improvements 

2 3 8 


obtained with phrases such as: "now my son is a child, I did not 
know what he was before" or "my son has re-awakened, now 
he begins to have contacts with the world", etc. 

The greatest surprise was tied to a series of contemporary 
events: Three children had therapy scheduled in the same day. 
All had had a complete stop of language from the time they 
were three or four years old. All had begun the ion cyclotron 
resonance therapy at the same time as they were being treated 
at a speech rehabilitation center. All three children began to 
speak at the same time, expressing some words in the same 
day after an identical number of therapies (five). Two of them 
constructed some phrases following the fifteenth treatment. 
This observation concerning an apparent synchronous response 
in these three patients suggests that the dose dependence and/ 
or timing of the treatments is quite critical. 

Another group of scientists at the Institute of Biological Medicine 
in Milan reported their experience using the SEQEX machine over 
a five-year period by publishing three case studies. Two of the cases 
involved multiple sclerosis, and one heart disease. They found that 
using the SEQEX device improved the symptoms of the patients 
with multiple sclerosis and reduced the inflammation of the patient 
with heart obstructions. The studies only lasted six weeks, with two 
treatments every week for six weeks. Imagine if the researchers had 
treated the patients over a longer period - maybe the machine could 
have significantly helped them even further. 

The bad news is that the SEQEX machine is available only in 
Italy. Why is this so? Why do some Western medical authorities 
feel that they have superior knowledge compared with others and 
ban the use of proven successful products? Over one hundred 
Italian medical institutions are using the SEQEX machine to treat 
patients. Are we saying that these trained doctors are wrong, that 
the scientific studies are inaccurate? Or are we hiding behind the 

2 39 


fact that the trials are too 
small or some other such 
nonsense to withhold this 
machine from a wider 

The Havas study 
on diabetes, and other similar reports, highlights many issues. One sad 
fact that seems to come out of these is the idea that there is only one 
solution to any medical problem, and that is the one described in all 
the medical textbooks that doctors read at university. If an idea is not 
listed there, the chances of doctors being able to change their attitudes 
seem to be very slim. But those textbooks patently do not provide all the 

I will always remember watching the TV film Super Size Me. This 
was a documentary film based on an experiment in which, for a month, 
the reporter ate a diet of food bought exclusively from McDonald's. At 
the beginning of the film, he went to his local doctor to have various 
biological parameters measured, while the doctor merrily chatted to 
him about his upcoming project. At no point, does the doctor seem 
aware of the damage to the body that eating a diet of sugary, salty and 
fatty foods can have. During the early days of the film, the reporter has 
regular check-ups, and after only a very short period of time, about 
three weeks, the doctor tells him that he has to cancel the experiment 
immediately as his body has responded so quickly to the new diet that 
his organs face malfunctioning. This was a very dramatic part of the 
film, but it highlighted to me how limited the medical establishment 
is in terms of the effect food has on us. Now, if they are unaware of 
this fundamental understanding related to food, there is absolutely 
no chance that they will be aware of the damage that electromagnetic 
forces cause in our bodies. It clearly reinforces my belief that doctors 
lack a significant understanding of how the body works and are very 



slow to change to any new ideas. 

Depressingly, there is very little difference between the previous 
chapter on bees and this chapter. Most research is going down similar 
safe paths to find cures for illnesses, apparently looking for a single 
smoldng gun. In studies on autism and chronic fatigue, scientists 
seem to be searching for a faulty gene or a specific virus. As I have 
frequently mentioned, I believe this is a complete waste of time 
because the scientists are not looldng at the bigger picture. How can 
the exponential growth in illnesses such as autism and diabetes be due 
to a gene issue that has seemingly just appeared in our biological make- 
up? It is more likely that something in our environment is causing 
these dormant genes to re-ignite themselves and play an active role in 
our health, rather than being the passive players they previously were. 

My dream would be to set up a charity that investigated these 
illnesses in a completely new way, one that was based on the evidence 
and not on the rigged structures of peer-reviewed papers that require 
fellow scientists to decide whether one's research is worthy of funding. 
I believe that a new set of charities should be developed to spend money 
on investigating alternative methods of treatment so that machines like 
the SEQEX can be made available to everyone rather than just those 
who live in Italy. If these charities obtained funding, patients suffering 
from illnesses such as autism, chronic fatigue, diabetes and muscular 
sclerosis might have a chance of finding some relief or cure for their 
illness. I wait in hope. 





Introduction To 

Sir J.C. Bose 

- A forgotten genius 

" Bose's whole book abounds in interesting 
matter skilfully woven together, and would be 
recommended as of great value, if it did not 
continually arouse our incredulity" 

comparative-eiectro-physioiogy - 
Nature, March 8, 1908 

2 43 


How is it possible that a man who spent thirty years 
working on revolutionary science had his books 
published worldwide and is publicly recognised eighty 
years later as the real inventor of radio technology, 
before Marconi, yet he is still relatively unknown? There are 
probably very few people in science today who recognise the name 
of Sir Jagadis Chandra Bose. 

So why am I dedicating a whole chapter to a man few have 
ever heard of, who died over seventy years ago and whose books 
are hardly read or studied? Or more to the point, why have we 
forgotten about a man who was famous in his day, whose science 
was recognised around Europe and whose lecture tours were sold 
out? Why did the machines that he invented, which could magnify 
the growth of plants by a factor of ten million, disappear along with 
his existence? (His machines literally made it possible to watch a 
plant grow in front of your eyes!) Well, the reason I have written 
about him in such great detail is simply because I have read his 
books and been astounded by his discoveries. I have waded through 
thousands of pages of scientific experiments and become dazzled 
by the new ideas I found there. These proven scientific ideas are 
so important to our basic understanding of how living organisms 
behave that it really beggars belief that Bose has not been given 
the fame and recognition he deserves. So if you want to know how 
plants and animals behave at the most fundamental level, you have 
to read this chapter. 


In order to show how remarkable Bose's ideas were, I have decided 
that it is relevant to describe his upbringing and the social and 
economic barriers he came up against. It is important to remember 
that he was born and educated in India at a time when it was part of 



the British Empire. I have a good general knowledge of the history of 
India, because one of my hobbies involves collecting certain antique 
objects that were made there at the beginning of the 18th century. 
India was a country in which the British dominated and all of the 
key jobs were created for and by the . However, as India was so big, 
local Indians were employed by the civil service, the bureaucratic 
element needed to run the country. I have read examination papers 
that the Indians had to pass in order to become eligible for one 
of these civil service jobs, and I can promise you that these tests 
are more rigorous than any examination questions I have ever seen 
at degree level. In order to pass, a candidate had to be incredibly 
well educated and obviously fluent in English. Therefore, while you 
might think that India was a very poor and backward country in the 
19th century, which was probably true for a large proportion of its 
citizens, the select few who managed to achieve a good education 
were as sophisticated as anyone educated in the developed nations. 

Bose was born into a middle-class family of five sisters and two 
brothers. His father, Bhagwan Chandra Bose, was headmaster of 
a local school and later became a deputy magistrate. His mother 
came from an aristocratic family. When Jagadis Bose was ten years 
old, he was sent to St Xavier's College in Calcutta, a school for 
Europeans and Anglo-Indians, and it was there that he developed 
his knowledge of English and science. He was a first-class student, 
and when he finished school, he applied to Calcutta University, 
passing the exams with distinction, and for his reward he was given 
a scholarship on the science course. Having completed his degree, 
he applied for a degree in science at Cambridge University, UK, 
where again he won a scholarship in natural science at Christ's 
College, Cambridge. 

In a country where all things were run and dominated by the 
British, science was no exception. The one institution that was of 

2 45 


sufficient merit for Bose to return to was the Imperial Educational 
Service, a scientific institution aimed at scientific teaching and 
research, but it was only possible to work there if you were British. 
Luckily for Bose, on his return to India following his degrees, he was 
furnished with a letter of recommendation that was passed on to 
Lord Ripon, Viceroy of India, who forced the education authorities 
to accept Bose. He was subsequently employed by the Imperial 
Educational Service, albeit at one-third of the salary of British 
employees. In defiance of these terms, Bose refused to accept the 
payment and for a number of years was paid nothing. It was not 
until three years later that he was put on an equal footing to the 
British employees and received full pay for his work. He was by then 
a full professor. 

It was the discovery of electromagnetic waves by the German 
scientist Heinrich Hertz in 1887 that really started the remarkable 
chain of events that led Bose to make his initial major discoveries. 
This discovery eventually led us to discover most of the ideas that we 
take for granted now, such as the radio, X-rays and microwaves. At 
the time, however, Hertz himself did not realise the significance of 
his discoveries: 

It's of no use whatsoever ... this is just an experiment that proves 
Maestro Maxwell was right - we just have these mysterious 
electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. 
But they are there. 

Asked about the ramifications of his discoveries, Hertz replied: 
Nothing, I guess. 

Other scientists, however, could see the implications of his 
discoveries, including Popov in Russia and Marconi in Italy, as well 



as J.C. Bose in India. 

Bose must have been a very frustrated man when he read about 
Hertz's discoveries. There he was, teaching in the finest institution 
in India, but an institution with no means to reproduce Hertz's 
experiments. There was simply no apparatus available for Bose to 
conduct his own similar experiments. But this did not deter him; in 
fact, it drove him to develop his own unique apparatus, equipment 
that would be far more advanced than any other in his field of 

Initially, in order to conduct experiments into electromagnetic 
waves, Bose had to find a room in which to carry out experiments 
within the Presidency college, where he was teaching. He found 
a spare room that adjoined a bathroom and converted it into 
his own small laboratory for the sole use of his team in order to 
investigate electromagnetic waves. A local tinsmith was employed 
to manufacture apparatus designed by Bose that would allow him 
to make electrical waves. These new invisible rays could then be 
measured and detected at a distance by a receiver. 

The significance of what Bose discovered the following year was 
monumental. He showed that waves could be sent from one area 
and could travel through the air to be collected at some considerable 
distance from their source. It was as if someone had discovered a 
magical invisible force. It did not take long for him to go public with 
his discoveries, and a year after creating the laboratory he gave the 
first public demonstration of his invisible rays in 1895, two years 
before Marconi was granted his patent for radio waves. 

Bose's experiment showed that electromagnetic waves could 
pass through walls. He set up the wave emitter in one room and the 
wave detector in another room twenty-five metres further down the 
corridor; the waves could be picked up clearly in the second room. 
Bose demonstrated that the waves could dramatically travel not only 



through walls, but also through the body of the Lieutenant Governor. 
The dramatic success of this display to his fellow professionals led to 
a public demonstration at the town hall in Calcutta in the presence 
of Sir Alexander McKenzie, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. He 
was so impressed with Bose's experiment that he agreed to give him 
extra funding to continue further research in this new science. 

These two demonstrations remain important in the history of 
radio because they were one of the earliest demonstrations of radio 
waves travelling over a long distance. The experiments must have 
seemed amazing to the public watching them as Bose was able to 
turn on the electromagnetic waves in one area of the demonstration, 
and then, as if by magic, a bell would ring at a completely separate 
location from where he was standing. It was the first remote 
control device that was demonstrated publicly. He also set up a 
demonstration purely for dramatic effect that he knew would cause 
a public sensation. Using remote control and new apparatus, he 
caused an explosion by detonating a miniature mine and then also 
showed that a pistol could be discharged remotely. 

One of the more remarkable facts about Bose was that he was not 
interested in making money from his experiments. His significant 
inventions could have made him a fortune, but he chose to ignore 
any chances of profiting from it through patents. It was perfectly 
apparent after his first experiment that there were substantial 
commercial possibilities. The Electrician Journal, writing on Bose's 
paper of 1895, drew attention to these commercial possibilities in 
terms of an invention to communicate from land to sea: 

A practical system of electromagnetic 'light' -houses, the receiver 
on board ship being some electric equivalent of the human eye. 

As mentioned previously, and to his credit, Bose had from the 



outset always stipulated that he did not intend to make any profit 
from his inventions. In a book written by Patrick Geddes in 1920, 
which recorded much of Bose's life's work, the author claims that: 

...his child memory had been impressed by the pure white 
flowers offered in Indian worship; and it came early to him 
that whatever offerings his life could make should be untainted 
by any considerations of personal advantage. Moreover, he 
was painfully impressed by what seemed to him symptoms of 
deterioration, even in scientific men, by the temptation of gain; 
and so he made the resolve to seek for no personal advantage 
from his inventions. 

The best scientific explanation of what Bose was trying to achieve 
in his experiments comes from some of his writings in which he 
was attempting to explain to the reader the concept of different 
wavelengths (vibrations) and what possibilities there were still 
waiting to be discovered. The following paragraph is important, and 
I would suggest that you read it carefully as it explains in a simple 
way the very nature of vibrations, which contribute fundamentally 
to life itself: 

Imagine a large electric organ, provided with an infinite number 
of stops, each giving rise to a particular ether note. Imagine 
the lowest stop producing one vibration in a second. We should 
then get a gigantic ether wave 186, 000 miles long (this is 
because it travels at the speed of light). Let the next stop give 
rise to two vibrations in a second and let each succeeding stop 
produce higher and higher notes. What an infinite number 
of stops there would be! Imagine an unseen hand pressing 
the different stops in rapid succession, producing higher and 
higher notes. The ether note will thus rise in frequency from 



one vibration in a second to tens, to hundreds, to thousands, to 
millions, to millions of millions. While the ethereal sea in which 
we are immersed is being thus agitated by these multitudinous 
waves, we shall remain entirely unaffected, for we possess no 
organs of perception to respond to these waves. As the ether 
note rises still higher in pitch we shall for a brief moment 
perceive a sensation of warmth. This will be the case when the 
ether vibration reaches a frequency of several billions of times 
a second. As the note rises still higher our eyes will begin to 
be affected, a red glimmer of light would be the first to make 
its appearance. From this point the few colours we see are 
comprised within a single octave of vibration -from 400 to 800 
billions in one second. As the frequency of vibration rises still 
higher, our organs of perception fail us completely; a great gap 
in our consciousness obliterates the rest. The brief flash of light is 
succeeded by unbroken darkness. 

What Bose was so elegantly describing was that our eyes pick up 
only a tiny range of vibrations, and that the rest of the vibrations are 
not picked up by any bodily organs he was aware of at the time. 

He also stumbled upon another invention that was later to be 
recognised as the predecessor of the transistor. In transistors, small 
crystals of metal instead of valves are used for receiving radio waves. 
Bose developed the use of galena crystals - crystals of a lead salt - 
for making receivers for his electrical waves. Using these crystals, 
he invented a special device, which he named the Tejometer, that 
could receive and measure short radio waves as well as white and 
ultraviolet light. 

When Lord Rayleigh, one of Bose's Cambridge tutors, visited 
Calcutta, he was impressed by the Presidency College Laboratory 
set up by Bose. He felt it was high time that the aspiring scientist 
should visit Europe and come into contact with the latest trends 



in scientific research. However, in those days, things were not 
easy for an Indian. An American scientist could go to Europe on 
a government deputation, but would the authorities extend this 
opportunity to an Indian? Fortunately, Bose had the Lieutenant 
Governor, Sir Alexander McKenzie, on his side. McKenzie attached 
the greatest importance to Professor Bose visiting Europe and 
conferring with the scientific community there. Thus, he was finally 
granted a dispensation to leave. This was the first in a series of visits 
to Europe that Bose used to call his "scientific missions". 

Bose was invited to present a paper on electrical waves at a 
meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 
which was in session at Liverpool, and this was very well received. 
The scientific community was used to the huge apparatus used by 
European scientists to generate electrical waves. Bose's small and 
handy gadgets were entirely novel to them - they were held to be 
marvels of inventiveness. Lord Kelvin, "who already had occasion to 
express his admiration for Professor Bose's work, not only spoke in 
the warmest language after his address, but limped upstairs to the 
Ladies' Gallery and shook Mrs Bose by both hands". Lord Kelvin 
was quoted as saying: 

/ believe it will be conducive to the credit of India and to 
scientific education in Calcutta, if a well-equipped physical 
laboratory is added to the resources of the University of Calcutta 
in connection with the professorship held by Dr Bose. 

During his time in England, Bose started work on research that 
was so revolutionary in its day that parts of it were dismissed as 
nonsense by his peer groups in London when he addressed them 
later in public lectures. Without funding, Bose had to set about 
creating his own equipment that would allow him to conduct 



his revolutionary research. One of the items he invented was the 
"Crescograph", a unique piece of equipment that allowed him to 
measure the minutest reactions of plants to external stimulation 
such as electromagnetic waves. 


Reading one of Bose's books, and there are about ten of them, 
is an interesting experience. They read like a series of scientific 
experiments, each building upon the previous one, with literally 
hundreds of separate investigations being conducted within each 
book. None of them has a summary or an introduction; they just 
go from experiment to experiment with very little effort to place 
them within a wider context. As soon as Bose has proved a piece 
of science, he does not need to conduct any further experiments - 
he assumes that it has then been proven and moves on to another 
topic. He felt that it was not his responsibility to put the results into 
context; that was for other people to do. The first book Bose wrote, 
in 1902, is very similar to the following six books in terms of chapter 
titles. The only difference is that, with each printing of the book, 
he made more significant discoveries because he had built bigger 
and more technically advanced machines with which to conduct his 

Bose's early experiments in 1901 began with ideas that went 
against current thinking. He set out to show that living and non- 
living organisms behaved in a similar fashion. Who at the beginning 
of the last century would have guessed that a metal would react in 
the same way as living tissue? Even today, it is hard to imagine 
anyone saying that a sheet of iron is going to behave in the same way 
as living tissue, but that was exactly what Bose did, and he proved it 
was the case. He showed not only that they both reacted similarly to 
fatigue with overuse, but also that they both reacted in the same way 



to poisons (yes, you can seemingly poison 
a metal) and that they could be revived 
using antidotes. 

In experiment after experiment, he 
showed that plants, animals and metals 
all reacted in the same way to being 
poisoned. With living organisms, both 
plants and animals, chloroform was used 
as the poison. Bose's strangest idea was 
then to adopt the concept of poisoning 
metal to see how a metal would behave. 
Surprisingly, the shape of the electrical 
response was the same as that exhibited 
by plants and animals. A whole series of 
metals was tested - tin, zinc, brass, even 
platinum. So striking was the similarity 
of response that one day, when Bose 
was showing his evidence to Sir Michael 
Foster, the veteran physiologist of 

The latter picked up one graph of Bose's and said "come now 
Bose, what is the novelty in this curve? We have known it for at 
least the last half century" . 

"What do you think it is?" said Bose. 

"Why a curve of muscle response, of course." 

"Pardon me; it is the response of metallic tin." 

"What 1 ." said Foster, jumping up - "Tin! Did you say tin?" 

From his experiments, Bose concluded that metals, plants and 

2 53 

Pl& j, — Action of poison ill 
abolishing response of 
tn use 1 1: (uppermost 
record), plant (mi utile 
r< cord), and liu-tjl (loucbt 


All exhibited the phenomena of fatigue and depression, together 
with possibilities of recovery and of exaltation, yet also that of 
permanent irresponsiveness which is associated with death. 

His next series of experiments aimed to establish whether 
every part of a plant reacted in the same way as that of an animal. 
He wrote chapters of comparisons of the "response of animal and 
vegetable skins" whereby he showed that tomatoes, on the one 
hand, and frogs, tortoises and lizards on the other, were the same. 
He also tested the behaviour of specific plants' tissues against those 
of animals and found identical responses. Similarly, Bose looked 
at the digestive organs of plants. The venus fly trap, which Darwin 
had brought into great prominence, was tested against the stomachs 
of frogs, tortoises and other animals, and produced similar results. 
In fact, every experiment he conducted produced the results that 
both plants and animals responded in the same way to external 

The conclusion Bose came to from his hundreds of experiments 
was that plants were behaviourally identical to animals. This is a vital 
statement that should not be passed over lightly. It does not mean 
that plants and animals function in the same way, as they quite 
obviously do not. Rather, if a plant reacts to light in a positive way, 
animals and humans will also do so, but via different organs and 
chemical reactions. But the most amazing idea that can be derived 
from this principle is that we can learn about the human body from 
plants! I know this sounds bizarre, but if the principle holds - and 
it has been proved many times since - then if a plant reacts in a 
specific way to an external influence, humans will react in exactly 
the same way. Biologically, the process will be different, but the 
outcome will be identical. 

Theoretically, then, you could get rid of a lot of experiments on 

2 54 


animals by using plants, for the simple reason that plants behave 
in the same way as animals do to most stimuli such as poisons, 
anaesthetics, electrical stimulation and temperature. If a drug 
company wanted to know what harmful effects a drug might have, 
it would be very much easier for them to measure the electrical 
response from a variety of different plants at different doses of the 
drug than it would be to experiment on animals to achieve the same 

One of the problems with experiments on animals is that 
animal tissue is more easily susceptible to death than plant tissue, 
as plants can sustain their vitality for a far greater length of time. In 
animal tissues, the vital conditions are highly complex. In plants, 
the factors that modify responses can be more easily determined 
under the simpler conditions that are found in plant life. 

In fact, not only can you learn about animals' muscle and 
nerve behaviour from a plant, but it can also teach us about the 
behaviour of metals. I would be very interested to know if there are 
any metallurgists who have looked at Bose's books and used any of 
his ideas in their study of metals. I would doubt that any sensible 
person would admit they could determine the outcome of a metal's 
behaviour from analysing a plant. 


Even though Bose was very content with his experiments, he 
still needed to invent better machines to conduct tests into 
electromagnetic forces. It was Bose's idea to demonstrate that plants 
were on the same level as animals in evolutionary terms. In fact, he 
showed that plants were much more developed than animals and 
could perform actions that animals were incapable of. One simple 
experiment that he conducted was to compare the reactions of the 
human tongue to those of a plant, to see which was the more sensitive. 

2 55 


The tip of the tongue is the part of the human body that is most 
sensitive to electric currents. European men (I use this example as 
Bose was very conscious of the regional differences between people 
at that time) could detect a current as small as 6 micro-amperes, a 
micro-ampere being a millionth part of a unit of electric current. 
Indians from Calcutta, however, could detect a current that was only 
4.5 micro-amperes, but the plant, on the other hand, reacted to a 
stimulus of only 1.5 micro-amperes. Thus, from this test, Bose said 
that the plant was three times more advanced than the Indian and 
four times more so than the European! 

In order to show Bose's idea that plants were susceptible to 
factors outside the consciousness of human perception, he had to 
invent yet another machine, one that would report the rate of growth 
as a visual image, showing growth as a straight line - any deviation 
from that line would mean that the plant was growing more slowly 
or more quickly. His machine needed to be so sophisticated that 
it not only compensated for the movement of the earth, but also 
took into account the widely varying rates of growth in different 
plants and also the different rates of growth of the same plant under 
varying conditions. 

Bose solved all of these problems in his invention of a machine 
that he called the Balanced Crescograph, which could measure the 
growth rate of plants down to as little as one fifteen-millionth of an 
inch per second. This was much more than any other machine was 
capable of doing in its day; for that matter, I am not sure that there 
are even now similar machines that can achieve the same result in 
such a way. How many advanced measuring machines today are 
programmed to take into account the movement of the earth? 

Later, Bose wanted to conduct more and more research into 
the growth of plants. What he realised was that the Balanced 
Crescograph was limited because of the mechanical apparatus it 


Our mind cannot grasp 
magnification so stupendous. We 
can, however, obtain some concrete 
idea of it finding what the speed of 

used. He therefore had to re-invent 
it, and what he came up with was 
the Magnetic Crescograph, which 
used electromagnetic force and light 
to make minute measurements. Bose 
used his eloquence to describe what 
his new machine would be capable 


Magnetic crescograph 

the proverbial snail becomes when magnified ten million times 
by the Magnetic Crescograph. For this enhanced speed there is 
no parallel in modern gunnery. The fifteen-inch muzzle cannon 
of the Queen Elizabeth throws out a shell with a muzzle 
velocity of 2360 feet per second or about 8 million feet per 
hour; but the Crescographic snail would move at a speed of 200 
million feet per hour or 24 times faster than the cannon shot. 
Let us turn to cosmic movements for a closer parallel. A point 
of the equator whirls round at the rate of 1037 miles per hour. 
But the Crescographic snail may well look down on the sluggish 
earth; for by the time the earth makes one revolution the snail 
would have gone round nearly forty times! 

In order to show audiences the power of the magnification 
and the behaviour of the plants, Bose conducted a series of 
public lectures in London between 19 10 and 1920. During the 





. , 40'C SflT cr.'r 55'CfH-) 

Fio. 88. — ErFKci ok TSMMMMriUI ox Heai-onse 
The rrspeniie> was abolished ill the hot-water tciiipi mltiru ot 5S° C. 

experiments, he would set up his Magnetic Crescograph in lecture 
theatres and attach his plant to it. The effects would be shown on a 
giant three-metre screen by using a beam of light: any growth would 
send the beam to the right, and any retardation would show it to 
the left. Bose's experiment started by adding cooled tap water via a 
stopcock to the plant. The audience could see that the growth of the 
plant started to slow down due to the cooled water being introduced, 
eventually causing the plant to stop its growth completely. As Bose 
slowly heated the plant chamber, the plant's growth started to 
renew and gather speed, the greater the temperature reached. Next, 
another stopcock introduced a depressing agent and the growth 
again became paralysed - but a dose of stimulant instantly removed 
the depression. The life of the plant became subservient to the will of 
the experimenter. He could increase or decrease its growth activity 
in front of the audience's eyes. Bose said that "it is by the extension 
of man's power beyond his sense limitation that he is enabled to 
probe into the deeper mysteries of nature". 

This great invention of the Magnetic Crescograph was the 
subject of intense controversy as its results were so revolutionary. 
In the spring of 1920, The Times newspaper initiated a debate 
on the remarkable results achieved by Mr Bose with the high- 
magnification instruments used to record the automatic pulsations 

2 5 8 


of the plant. In fact, an inquiry was undertaken by such luminaries 
at the time as Sir William Bragg and Sir William Bayliss, Fellows 
of the Royal Society. The members of the investigating committee 
reported later in The Times on 4th May 1920 that they were satisfied 
that the growth of the plant and its response to stimulation were 
correctly recorded by Bose's instrument at a magnification of one to 
ten million times. 

I often wonder whether, had the First and Second World 
Wars not stopped scientific studies for forty years, our knowledge 
of plants would have been significantly more advanced, and the 
machines that Bose invented would be in every scientific laboratory 
rather than just in museums. How useful would it be for food 
development to know how plants react every second to stimulation 
by fertilisers, electrical waves or sound pollution? Imagine the 
possibility that you could literally sit and watch the plant grow in 
front of your eyes and see which fertiliser offered the best results, 
which water temperature each individual plant preferred and which 
sounds the plant was stimulated by! 


All plants emit electrical responses, and it was this fundamental 
property of organisms that Bose utilised in his experiments 
throughout his career. All of his sophisticated machines looked at 
electrical responses in order to assess the organisms' behaviour. 
He felt that this response would reflect how the plant was reacting 
to whatever external stimulus was applied. If the response was 
positive, the plant was reacting favourably, whereas if it was 
negative, the plant was reacting negatively. At the point at which the 
electrical response was so low that no more was emitted, the plant 
was declared to be dead. 

These reactions were essential as they allowed Bose the 

2 59 


possibility of conducting experiments to assess the plants' electrical 
responses. Without electrical responses, it would be impossible to 
test how a plant behaved as there would be no obvious physical or 
chemical reaction for such a simple activity as pruning a plant or 
pinching a leaf. Some reactions of plants are going to be greater 
than others, and Bose found the variation to be as much as i volt. 
I can only work out how much i volt is when I think of batteries 
that I use for electrical appliances: the smallest ones are the AAA 
batteries, which are 1.2 volts. So 1 volt is quite a significant amount. 

Is the plant capable of achieving more than humans or animals? 
Are our "vegetative brethren" superior in any of their abilities? In 
one area, plants are in fact superior to us, in that they can respond to 

an infinite number of wavelengths, which is far better than anything 
an animal or a human can achieve. Scientists say that we can only 
pick up on few ranges of vibration: sound and light - through our 
ears and eyes - and tactile vibrations - felt through our skin, which 
can pick up on very specific vibrations of around 50 Hz and 200- 




300 Hz. We do not have any other major organs that indicate we 
have any possibility of picking up other vibrations. But Bose showed 
that plants can pick up not only sound and light vibrations but 
every single type of vibration, from the smallest to the largest, from 
whatever source. 

One of the many unusual abilities of plants is to be able to 
recognise almost all of the known wavelengths and show a reaction 
to them, from the shortest to the longest. The longest wavelengths 
are ones that have the longest space between impulses, such as the 
impulses given off once a year by a circulating planet. Humans can 
interpret only a very small range of frequencies, the most common 
being those emitted as light and sound. The plant, on the other 
hand, recognises them all and reacts accordingly. It can respond to 
waves that appear only once a year as well as waves that are emitted 
500,000 times a second. 

Plants also respond to the electrical waves that are generated by 
all the electrical objects that we use, from mobile phones through 
to microwave cookers and light bulbs. Not only do plants recognise 
these wavelengths, but they also respond adversely to them, with a 
reduction in growth. Although Bose discovered that plants did not 
like electrical waves, he found that a very small stimulation applied 
to a plant - in this case a wheat seed - actually caused an increase in 
growth of that plant. A strong stimulation caused the plant damage, 
and with a medium stimulation the plant suffered retardation and 
then recovery, up and down. 

In this simple experiment, he measured the amount of growth 
caused by: 

1. Feeble electrical vibrations; 

2. Slightly above sub-minimal electrical vibrations; 

3 . M edium-sized electrical vibrations . 



Fig. 1 13. Record of responses of plant to wireless stimulation, (a) Response lo feeble 
stimulus- bj nceeletalion of growth ; (/>) response toslroiiR stimulus by retardation 
of growth ; (c) response to medium stimulation — retardation follow H by recovery. 
Down-curve represents acceleration, and up-curvc ictaiditlioii ol growth (seedling 

In order to measure the effect of electrical vibrations, Bose placed 
an electric radiator 200 metres from a growing wheat seedling and 
measured its growth rate. Bose managed to generate feeble vibrations 
from this radiator by decreasing the energy of the radiator's sparks. 
This very feeble stimulation led to the plant growing at a very small 
additional rate. 

The slightly above sub-minimal electrical vibrations caused the 
growth in the plant to become less for a short time before it suddenly 
put on a growth spurt. This would be a continuous cycle of retardation 
and growth so that each contraction and expansion would make the 
plant grow in smaller amounts. 

The significant result, however, came from the experiment on the 



medium-sized electrical output, which was by Bose's definition actually 
not very large in real terms, but a large amount to the plant. What it 
showed clearly was that the plant did not like the electrical stimulation 
and reflected this in its immediate retardation and shrinkage. 

Is there anything we need to know about this simple experiment? 
The fact that a small electrical vibration causes a direct effect on a plant 
should be of historic importance, shouldn't it? Are there not millions of 
electric radiators in people's houses throughout the world? More to the 
point, are there not hundreds of millions of other electrical appliances 
around us all that give out electrical vibrations that are affecting plants? 
What if they are affecting us as well as plants? If they are, do they affect 
us in the same way as a plant or are there much more sinister issues 
that we don't know about? How many of us know that plants can 
pick up every imaginable vibration, from the smallest to the largest? I 
certainly didn't. And if they can, why can they? There must be a reason 
for them to be able to do so, and if they can do it, can animals do it as 
well? And what else can plants do that we are not aware of? 

I will in fact go on to show in the following chapter that there are 
many things that plants can do that we have ignored, simply because 
they do not fit into our present-day understanding of how everything 
works together. Acknowledging that plants function at a much higher 
level than we give them credit for, rather than just being there and 
looking pretty, is not something that many of us consider. But I will 
show very shortly that scientists have intentionally chosen to ignore a 
range of weird and unusual behaviours in plants, as it is not to their 
political advantage. 

Remember that Bose was writing from 1902 to 1928 and published 
his experiments both in India and the UK. He gave numerous lectures 
to Royal Institutes in London and was often written up in mainstream 
newspapers. Bose was not an unknown person; his research has 
been available for scientists to read for over a hundred years now. 



So why have his ideas not been developed further? 

In a chapter in the book "Signalling in Plants", published 
in 2009, Baluska and Mancuso say the following about how 
disinterested most botanists are in researching vibrations: 

Despite the fact that the rhythmical behaviour is a 
quintessential pattern of life itself most researchers still 
treat oscillations in plants as some unwanted physiologically 
unrelated noise. 

They go on to say: 

Astonishingly little research effort is currently devoted to high 
frequency oscillations in plant biology. 

What a crime! How many millions of pounds of research funding 
are being wasted when scientists could unlock many of the secrets of 
plants just by researching vibrational behaviour. It is my contention, 
moreover, that vibrations are an essential part of life and that we 
can only understand better our behaviour by understanding these 


This is a strange area of science, particularly as none of us ever thinks 
about it. What do I mean when I refer to the death temperature of 
the radish? Surely a radish is dead the moment you pull it out of 
the ground. Bose proves that this is nowhere near the truth, and the 
consequences of this fact have, I believe, major consequences for 
our health and the way in which we choose to cook and eat the food 
that we think we understand. 

What is the highest temperature to which you can subject a 



radish before its electrical response becomes zero and the plant can 
be certified as dead? In the case of the radish, Bose slowly raised 
the temperature in a bath of water in which a radish was floating, 
and the electrical response of the radish became zero at or around 
the 55°C level. Bose interpreted this as that the radish had finally 
met its maker and could be certified as dead. Bose declared that, 
without any electrical response, all living organisms are dead. He 
then conducted the same experiment with celery and found that the 
electrical response died at a temperature of 6o°C. 

These results were both conducted using a slowly increasing 
water temperature. What would be the difference, however, if the 
vegetables were suddenly introduced to a high temperature? Bose 
discovered that if celery was dropped into water of various different 
temperatures, it died at 5o°C instead of dying at 6o°C - 10 degrees 
less than with slow immersion. So the shock of being dropped into 
hot water caused the celery to die at a lower temperature. 

Unusually, in one experiment on a radish exposed to frost, 
the electrical response produced was markedly reduced when the 
radish returned to its normal temperature. The effect of the frost 
led to a change in molecular structure of the radish so that it could 
no longer produce its normal response. However, the experiment 
showed that it was not just the low temperature that was the factor at 
play, but also how long the radish had been cooled. If the radish had 
been cooled for only a matter of minutes, it would show no signs 
of change after warming and would give out the same electrical 
response as if it had not been cooled. 

Below is a list of plants with good electrical responses that Bose 
used to conduct his experiments. Not all plants behave the same - 
some offer better results than others: 

The root response Carrot, radish 



Leaf stalk 

Geranium, vine 

Horse chestnut, turnip,cauliflower, 
celery, eucharis lily 
Arum lily 

Eggplant (aubergine) 

Flower stalk 


How long does it take to kill a carrot by steaming it in a kitchen 
steamer? Five minutes seems to do the trick. Before that time, the 
carrot is managing to cope with the extra heat generated by the 
steam. Its electrical response, although somewhat diminished, is 
still normal. However, at almost exactly five minutes, the electrical 
response fades away and all response returns to zero. I find this a 
very fascinating experiment, one that has much more significance 
than just the minor amusement of imagining a carrot dying. What 
does it say for our method of cooking and its relationship to the 
health benefits of a carrot, whether it should be eaten while "alive" 
or "dead"? Should we eat all vegetables steamed for less than five 
minutes, so that the carrot can stay alive? Or is there no effect, from 
a nutritional perspective, of whether the carrot is alive or dead? I can 
tell you now that I have tried and tried to find further information on 
this matter, but it seems to have been overlooked by every scientist 
working in this field for the past one hundred years. 

I need to go back to the first experiment conducted by Bose 
where he discovered that vegetables actually have a death to show 
you what sort of responses his research generated in his day, back in 
the early 1920s. If similar experiments were conducted today, I am 
sure the reaction would be similar. But, in fact, I still have no idea 
why no-one has chosen to re-enact these simple experiments within 
the food industry, so that we can get a better understanding about 



our cooking habits and identify the best method of eating vegetables 
with regard to cooking techniques. Could it be that not only the type 
of vegetable plays a part, but also the way in which it is cooked? 
Should we roast, boil or steam our vegetables? For what length of 
time would they have to be cooked and within which temperature 

Bose showed that a plant emits an electrical current when it 
dies. In his study of vegetables, he reported that one pea can emit as 
much as half a volt. If a set of peas were lined up and crushed into 
an electrical series, the electric pressure would be 500 volts, which 
might cause even the electrocution of unsuspecting victims. Bose 
dryly remarked about this experiment, "it is well that the cook does 
not know the danger she runs in preparing the particular dish; it is 
fortunate for us that the peas are not arranged in series!" 

In London, Bose demonstrated these death spasms to Mr 
Bernard Shaw, the famous philosopher - a vegetarian - who was 
quoted as being unhappy "to find that a piece of cabbage was thrown 
into violent convulsions when scalded to death". The following 
quote, from The Nation magazine, reads like the description of a 
modern-day vivisection experiment on a monkey: 


BLINDED BY SCIENCE a room near Maida Vale there is an unfortunate carrot 
strapped to the table of an unlicensed vivisector. Wires pass 
through two glass tubes full of a white substance; they are like 
two legs whose feet are buried in thefesh of the carrot. When 
the vegetable is pinched with a pair of forceps it winces. It is 
so strapped that its electric shudder of pain pulls the long arm 
of a very delicate lever which actuates a tiny mirror. This casts 
a beam of light on the frieze at the end of the room and thus 
enormously exaggerates the tremor of the carrot. A pinch near 
the right hand tube sends the beam seven or eight feet to the 
right and a stab near the other wire sends it as far to the left. 
Thus can science reveal the feelings of even so stolid a vegetable 
as the carrot. 

Seriously though, what 
does that mean when we 
are eating a piece of carrot? 
Electrical charges must be 
going somewhere, and if 
you bite into a raw carrot, 
does this not mean you will 
be collecting the electrical 
output from the carrot in 
your mouth? 

In one experiment 
Bose conducted in London 
on sea kale, he was worried to discover that the kale did not respond 
as the other vegetables had done, so he asked his vegetable supplier 
about the delivery and was told that the sea kale had, on its journey 
to London, been affected by a snowfall. Subsequent deliveries of 
sea kale showed no negative response. As I read this description in 
Bose, I thought it was just an interesting anecdote about his time 

Tt-r (in nrnr.1* I., ih* |,n . .* IhU nn 
fej |<ftffJ«*J ■■ fin! \mni _ 

TiLisliuaal i^mulm W ftf^'lM ml IxIctUi ri'oM ■Zltti' mtfeal 



in London; its significance did not dawn on me straight away. It 
was not until much later that I appreciated its importance. His 
experiments could imply that, in order to eat healthy food, the 
carrot, for example, would have to retain a healthy electrical charge 
that reflected its healthy status. The weaker the carrot, the weaker 
the electrical charge it would emit. A frozen carrot would emit no 
electrical charge and would therefore not have any " electrical benefit" 
to the individual eating it. Imagine if our bodies expect to receive 
not only vitamins and minerals from our diet, but also electrical 
stimulation; one could conclude that non-healthy vegetables are not 
providing all three factors that our bodies need; vitamins, minerals 
and now also electrical charges! 

The more I thought about this idea, the more it seemed to 
make sense. It seemed to be an important missing link in our 
understanding of our diet. 

But one thing that intrigued me was how you could define 
the death of a carrot. Does a carrot die when you pull it out of the 
ground, or when you slice it up for cooking? Does it die only when 
it has been "poisoned" by the gastric juices in our stomach, or does 
boiling a carrot so to speak "kill" it? Most importantly, if an electrical 
discharge were emitted, what part of the body is supposed to collect 
it, and also what is the benefit of having this additional voltage? 


I had to go back to Bose's original work to discover the exact 
definition of plant death. Luckily, he had thought this process 
through and had developed many experiments to show exactly 
when it occurred. Bose was able to develop experiments that looked 
at four different options, using plants that under normal conditions 
died at or around 6o°C: 

i. The method of electrical response. Bose conducted experiments 



showing that heating a bunch of radishes killed them between the 
temperatures of 35°C and 55°C. The actual death point, as measured 
by a lack of electrical response, depended on the individual radish 
and the season in which the experiment was being done, the death 
occurring a few degrees lower in winter than it did in summer. 

2. The method by which the point of death is determined from the 
occurrence of a spasmodic movement (shock), in a dorsi-ventral or 
anisotropic organ. In this experiment, Bose showed that if you drop 
a plant into a pan of water at 35°C, it will collapse its leaves through 
the shock of the hot water. If, however, you slowly bring the pan 
of water up to 35°C, the plant will show no signs of any adverse 
effect. Sadly, when the temperature reaches 59°C, it hits the death 
point and the plant leaf is termed dead. Interestingly, when the 
experiment was conducted with the leaf still attached to the plant, 
only the leaf that was heated in the water was killed while the rest of 
the plant was unaffected. 

3. The method that depends on the sudden expulsion of water at the 
moment of death from a hollow organ, previously filled with liquid. 
This investigation reported that, in the throes of death, a plant will 
expunge water from itself as a final act. The plant in this case was an 
allium. It was shown that temperatures of 59°C in a young plant and 
63°C in an older plant were those at which the plant died, causing a 
sudden expulsion of water. 

4. The method in which the death point is determined from the sudden 
reversal of a thermomechanical response curve. Bose went into great 
detail to describe this experiment and the apparatus upon which 
his experiments were conducted, doing this to demonstrate that his 
results were irrefutable. He showed, using photographic paper, that 



he could obtain the same results as were obtained by measuring the 
electrical response. The molecular change that was visible on the 
photographic paper was caused by the increase in temperature of the 
Passiflora plant and was the cause of the plant's death, specifically at 
59 .6°C. 


Imagine you had to lift a very small weight over and over again, as 
you might do in the gym. The more you do it, the harder it gets, and 
your muscles start to show signs of fatigue. Without this fatigue, 
you would be able to carry on regardless and increase your muscles 
to any size in just a matter of weeks. However, as anyone who has 
tried to get fitter knows, you have to put in the work and train your 
muscles to get stronger so that the fatigue takes longer each time to 
lack in. Plants behave in exactly the same way as animal muscles: 
too much stimulation causes them fatigue. This is a very important 
point, one of many fundamentals of science that seems to have been 
forgotten by most scientists conducting experiments on plants. If 
you knew this simple fact, why would you experiment on a plant 
and subject it to impulses that lasted twenty-four hours a day, seven 
days a week, and not expect the plant to show signs of fatigue? This 
would reduce your scientific results to complete meaninglessness. 

But if, on the other hand, you can give the muscle enough rest 
between each exercise, it is possible to continue the exercise for a 
very long time. The point to grasp here is that it is not the repeated 
exercise that is the key to muscle fatigue, but the frequency of 
exercise that is important. One lift every 20 minutes for example can 
be carried on all day; one lift every 10 seconds will be maintained for 
only a matter of minutes. 

In one of Bose's experiments, a cauliflower was stimulated by a 
vibration of forty-five times per second at one minute intervals and 



reacted positively; the vibration was then doubled for the next three 
consecutive stimulations and then reverted back to the forty-five per 
second stimulation. As a consequence of the overexertion caused by 
the ninety per second impulse, the plant showed signs of fatigue. 
With a fifteen-minute rest, the plants then responded normally. 

Another experiment was carried out on the carrot. In this case, 
a two-minute stimulation was 
followed by a two-minute rest, 
with a vibration rate of fifty per 
second. There was a significant 
initial response followed by fatigue, 
in a constant cycle, up and down. 
When, however, the carrots were 
given a five-minute rest after two 
sets of stimulation, the resulting 
response was significantly greater. 
So imagine if you did one set of 
weights for two minutes and then 
rested for another two minutes - you could do the same amount of 
exercise each time. However, if you then gave yourself a five-minute 
rest, you could actually lift more weights than you had done in the 
previous two exercises. 

Of course, this idea is purely based on the electrical response 
shown by the stimulation of a plant. I am not suggesting that you go out 
and follow this new style of exercise, but it would be interesting to know 
why there are no exercise classes in gyms that get you to do exercise 
slowly rather than getting as much as you can done in one hour. Maybe 
it's another case of science not telling us the facts, because it would 
then not be in anyone's interest to exercise over a long period of time, 
whereas all the exercise books and classes seem to want to get you to do 
everything in arbitrary amounts of time such as thirty minutes and one 

Fic. 3, — Electric response of metal 
showing fatigue (tin). 



hour. These are not times that your body is aware of. It would be more 
beneficial to do half the number of exercises in twice the length of time. 

Bose's interpretation of what is happening is based on equilibrium. 
The body always likes to maintain equilibrium in every function; when 
the body is out of equilibrium, we show signs of fatigue or illness. The 
body then reacts accordingly and tries different means to restore that 
equilibrium. In the muscle, Bose suggested that the molecules are 
thrown out of their state of equilibrium, and this is demonstrated by 
the change in electrical response. The greater the molecular distortion 
produced by the stimulus, the greater is the electrical variation. 
Therefore, the electrical response is shown to be the expression of the 
molecular disturbance produced by a stimulus of some land. 

An interesting issue arises when you compare tapping to vibrating. 
Tapping a plant, firstly with one tap followed by an interval and 
then with two taps and an interval, then three taps an interval, etc., 
produces increasing responses in the plant after each set of tapping - 
the responses actually get bigger each time. If you do the same with a 
vibration, increasing the vibration after every rest period, the electrical 
response does not increase significantly but comes to a maximum very 
quickly. This occurred very clearly in one of Bose's experiments on a 
turnip. Would it not be very interesting to analyse this tapping effect in 
a lot more detail, because Bose's experiment implies that it is possible 
to stimulate plants more by tapping than is possible using vibration. 
Could this effect be similar in humans? Would tapping on different 
parts of our body stimulate any chemical reaction that would prove to 
be beneficial to our health? Some form of complementary therapies 
use tapping as a procedure; maybe Bose has shown that there is a 
scientific basis for this after all. 

One experiment on the radish showed that if the stimulus was 
very small to begin with, the radish would elicit no response until the 
stimulus rose to a certain point, after which there would suddenly be 

2 73 


a maximum response past which it was impossible to go. This is the 
same in cardiac muscle. In Bose's time, this was known as the "all or 
none" principle; it says that there is a certain minimal intensity that is 
effective in producing a response, but further increases in the stimulus 
do not produce any more increase in response. 

If you take a stale radish - you know the sort, the one that has been 
at the bottom of the fridge drawer for too long and is tucked away in the 
back comer - this radish will actually show a lower electrical response 
as it is stale. Initially, it will respond to a stimulus negatively, but 
then it will show improved signs of a response after a couple of 
increases in frequency, but not up to the level of a fresh radish. 
What does this tell us about the radish? It suggests that stale food 
has different properties from fresh food, properties that might have 
an effect on the nutritional qualities and behaviour of these foods 
within our digestive system. 


Of even more significance to modern science are the experiments 
that Bose conducted on the growth of plants and how they were 
affected by electrical stimulation. The salamander is well known as 
an animal that can regrow lost limbs, and it has been found that it 
does this by electrical stimulation. If Bose were to show that a plant 
can grow over and above its normal level via electrical stimulation, 
could the human body also regrow organs or bones through 
additional electrical stimulation? 

The growth of plants is more significant, however, as plants 
provide a large part of our daily food intake, and if it were possible to 
increase production using any non-chemical means, any scientific 
research would be hugely significant and important. Or so you 
would think. But it appears that this is not always the case. Bose 
made a few critical discoveries that should have been used in our 



food production methods eighty years ago but are still not being 
introduced. He showed that you can increase yields in wheat by 
up to 50% utilising electrical vibrations to stimulate wheat seeds. I 
know that it seems ridiculous to be told this as we always are worried 
about the world's ability to feed itself, but although this simple 
experiment has been reproduced numerous times, its results have 
still not been put into use. 

When conducting any experiment into the growth of plants, 
it must be remembered that some plants grow very slowly. In 
the time it takes us to take one step, mimosa plants grow just by 
the length of half a single wave of light. So imagine what sort of 
technology is required in order to measure this minute change 
in growth. At the time Bose was working on his ideas, the only 
machine available was the "auxometer", which produced only 
about twenty times magnification. Several hours would have to 
elapse using this machine before the increase in growth became 
perceptible. It was so difficult to obtain enough magnification 
to make any investigation worthwhile that it took eight years of 
invention to overcome the problem. It forced Bose to create the 
"High Magnification Crescograph", a triumph of invention. The 
machine not only allowed him to see the plant growth in minute 
detail, but was also capable of keeping automated records. 

What Bose's initial studies of plants using the Crescograph 
showed was that plants do not grow in a steady and continuous 
pattern, but grow in rhythms. In Calcutta, where these experiments 
were conducted, the plants' growth cycle was about three growth 
pulses per minute. Each growth pulse showed a rapid uplift and 
then a slower partial recoil, amounting to a recession of about 0.25 
of the distance first gained. So each pulse generated a total growth 
rate of 0.75 of the initial burst. 

Some of Bose's studies made for uncomfortable reading 



amongst the biologists of his day. Frighteningly, some of the results 
still seem to scare scientists and seem to have been ignored. What 
would you say if the results suggested that touching an unhealthy 
plant actually helped to heal it, that physical stimulation made it 
better? But conversely, what if touching a healthy plant induced an 
immediate retardation of its growth, making it ill. Bose discovered, 
by using his Crescograph, that both these propositions were true. 

One other piece of science that Bose reported is related to 
temperature. One of the obvious facts we all know is that temperature 
will affect the growth of a plant - sunny days are preferable to colder 
ones. But what we might not know is that cooled water applied to a 
plant will actually slow its growth rate, whereas hot water will in fact 
increase its level of growth, even by many times until it reaches an 
optimum level. So to all you gardeners out there, try sticking your 
elbow in the water to make sure it is not too cold before you give it 
to your plants if you want to get the best out of them. 


Yet again, Bose was to discover universalities that seem to have 
passed unnoticed in today's experiments. The very notion that you 
can have positive and negative responses to the same stimulation, 
that then travel along the nervous system at different speeds, is 
unparalleled. His investigations proved that if a plant was given an 
external stimulus such as heat, it would create two simultaneous 
impulses, negative and positive, which then travelled through the 
plant at different speeds. The positive response travelled faster and 
arrived at the point of reception a considerable time before the 
negative response. But the negative wave, with its slower speed of 
transmission, was much the stronger of the two. In consequence, if 
the two impulses reached the responding point at about the same 
time, the positive stimulus would be completely masked by the 



predominant negative one. 

Weird but true. If you create a stimulus at a long distance from 
the plant, the positive response is stimulated before the negative. If 
the distance is great enough, the positive effect will reach the receptor 
so far ahead of the negative response that the negative one fails to 
reach the receptor point. Conversely, with the same stimulus, if it 
is applied too near the plant, the negative effect alone is stimulated 
at the receptor, the positive being masked by the more powerful 
negative effect. To show this, Bose used heat as his stimulus. 

Obviously, the quicker the nervous system can transfer the 
stimulus, the greater the effect. The stimulus travels slowly in a plant 
stem, and therefore the positive effect will be more pronounced if 
the stimulus is applied in the leaf area, where the communicating 
system is much faster. As an example, if a heat source was placed 
10 mm from the plant's stem, the positive effect arrived after 3 
seconds and the negative one 21 seconds later. If the heat was moved 
further away, thus creating a smaller amount of heat stimulation, 
the effect still occurred at 3 seconds for the positive response, but 
now 27 seconds for the negative response. What Bose's experiments 
showed is that the smaller the heat stimulation and the greater the 
distance from the plant, the larger is the positive response - less is 

I don't know how many scientists are aware of this, but I am 
pretty certain that most non-scientists have never heard of this idea 
in plants. Let alone that these impulses are the same in animals and 
therefore in humans. These double impulses were found by Bose 
to be exhibited in both plants and animals; we all have a positive 
and negative impulse racing around us at different speeds - how 
peculiar. But what are the implications? Is there any area of our 
bodies in which the impulses travel more slowly so that if we receive 
a feeble impulse, it should have a more positive effect than a strong 



impulse? This idea does not seem logical, yet Bose proved that 
animals respond in the same way as plants. 


Light is important in any experiment because it determines the 
growth of a plant. But not just any old light; it has to be the right sort 
of light. As I mentioned before, everything vibrates, including light. 
Our eyes are capable of picking up different colours of light because, 
for example, the colour red vibrates at a different rate from the colour 
yellow. Our eyes are very sophisticated pieces of equipment that can 
differentiate between minute differences in the frequency of vibrations. 
Light waves vibrate incredibly quickly, the quickest being ultra-violet 
The factor that is also important is the length of each vibration; some 
vibrations are extremely fast, many thousands per second, while other 
vibrations might take place only once a year. Some of the longest 
vibrations are electrical vibrations which can be 50 million times longer 
than the vibrations in ultraviolet light. 

Light affects plants depending upon its intensity; however, too 
much light slows the growth of plants. Plants grow best when the light 
is at a lower level rather than at a maximum; in fact, a too intense level 
of light causes the level of growth within the plant to stop. The only 
analogy I can think of is sun tanning. The best way to get a good suntan 
is to get a small amount of sun over a longer period, rather than sitting 
infrequently under the sun for long periods. For any of us who have 
attempted the latter, we know it only causes a lot of pain, trips to the 
chemists and sometimes sunstroke. So the level of the amount of sun 
we receive and its strength affects us, just as it seems to affect plants. 



Fig. 6. — Stimulating :iclit>ii uf minute quantity of 1 poison ' which in 
largo closes abolishes the response of 


Bose was able to watch over the space of just a few minutes the 
effect that chemicals, drugs and poisons had on plants' behaviour. 
Up until then, the level of knowledge of chemical and electrical 
stimulation had been very mixed; some experiments showed one 
result, whereas similar ones showed completely the opposite. With 
high magnification as well as Bose's intellect and methodology, 
he was able to explain all of the contradictions at the same time as 
laying out the groundwork for a new science. 

Bose made the remarkable discovery that while a particular 
level of electrical current stimulated growth, any excess amount 
had the opposite effect. The same was true of chemical stimulants 
- minute doses of certain poisons that would normally kill a plant 
instead acted as a stimulant, the plants growing more vigorously 
and flowering early. Moreover, these plants chemically treated with 
minute levels of poisons resisted "insect blights" more successfully. 

Amazingly, one other experiment highlighted additional factors 

2 79 


that should be investigated further to help our understanding of 
how homeopathy works. Bose conducted an experiment using a 
set batch of seedlings and divided them into three groups: one was 
kept in normal conditions to act as the reference point, another was 
depressed to a less favourable state by using subnormal conditions, 
and the third was put in optimum conditions. Minute doses of 
poisons, that normal plants could just survive after a period of 
struggle, were found to produce immediate death in the depressed 
plants; however, the same dose actively stimulated the growth of the 
plants held in the optimum conditions. 

Maybe it is no wonder that scientific experiments on humans 
produce such conflicting results, as the state of health of each 
individual taking a particular drug is NEVER taken into account. 
In fact, most people who enter into drug experiments are, by 
definition, unwell in the first place. Maybe if all drug experiments 
were conducted on only healthy people, it would be possible to 
generate a better idea of which drugs work and which ones don't. 


Scientific experiments have clearly shown that measurement of 
the electrical response provides a faithful reflection of the physical 
behaviour of plants. Bose showed that the life reactions of plants 
and humans are alike. He waxed lyrical a bit in the following prose 
he wrote for one of his lectures at the Royal Institution in London: 

In realising this unity of life, is our final sense of mystery 
deepened or lessened? Is our sense of wonder diminished 
when we realise in the infinite expanse of life that is silent and 
voiceless the foreshadowing of more wondeful complexities? 
Does not each of her new advances (science) gain for us a step 



in that stairway of rock which all must climb who desire to look 
from the mountain tops of the spirit upon the promised land of 

When a passing cloud is shown to decrease the electrical response 
of a mimosa plant for the few moments that the cloud is covering 
the sunlight, can we wonder that Bose said this? 


How does a plant behave when you prune it? The simple answer 
is: initially, not very well. It does not like it, which is not really 
surprising. When a leaf was cut off the mimosa plant mentioned 
above, the plant did not react to any outside stimulus for several 
hours; it had a paralysing effect. But then the plant recovered to 
its initial state. The detached leaf also recovered its responses in a 
couple of hours, but this lasted for only a day, after which a curious 
change crept in - the strength of its responses began rapidly to 
decline and it finally died. Its life could be extended by immersing 
the leaf into a solution of nutrients, but it would still die after a 

...we find that the plant is not a mere mass of vegetative 
growth, but that its every fibre is instinct with sensibility. We 
find it answering to outside stimuli, the responsive twitches 
increasing with the strength of the blow that impinges on it. We 
are able to record the throbs of its pulsating life and find these 
wax and wane according to the life conditions of the plant, and 
cease with the death of the organism. We find the different 
parts of the plant are connected together by conducting threads, 
so that the tremor of excitation initiated at one place courses 
through the whole, this nervous impulse, as in man, being 
accelerated or arrested under the several actions of drugs and 
poisons, in these and in many other ways the life reactions of 



plant and man are alike; thus through the experience of the 
plant it may be possible to alleviate the sufferings of man. 

Indeed, the response caused by different temperatures in plants 
is exactly the same as the response shown by muscle and nerve 
responses in animals. 


There is no doubt that Bose was a man of genius. His findings should 
have been granted the magnitude of those of other great scientific 
minds, such as Newton, Galileo and Einstein. It is a tragedy that 
his discoveries have not yet been understood or realised in current 
mainstream science. How many of today's experiments take into 
account a plant's level of fatigue, the time of year the experiment 
takes place, the level of the plant's health, or the temperature of 
the water it is being fed? How many medical or nutritional experts 
have ever considered that our bodies might be missing an essential 
element in our diet - electrical impulses - resulting from the 
electrical expulsion caused by the final death of a vegetable? I feel 
very privileged that I have had access to all of Bose's books and have 
managed to take a glimpse into the world of this incredible man. 



2 8 3 




Introduction To 


" Despite the fact that the rhythmical 
behaviour is a quintessential pattern 
of life itself most researchers still 
treat vibrations in plants as some 
unwanted physiological noise ". 

Sergey Shabaia, 
"Communication in Plants" 2009 

28 5 


I am going to start by telling you about a controversial book 
that was written in 1973 called the Secret Life of Plants, by 
Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird. This one book, a US 
bestseller, was, I believe, the reason major research into plant 
behaviour was halted for more than forty years. The ideas in that 
book were so radical that it is only recently that scientists have 
finally been able to stick their heads above the parapet and attempt 
to investigate the behaviour of plants without being open to peer 
group ridicule. 

Why did this book cause such a major problem? The most 
significant idea was that plants can react to human emotions. It 
was alleged that plants were able to react to events even before they 
happened. For instance, if you were walking over to a plant to prune 
it, the plant would be aware of this before you had actually started 
to make any physical cuts to the plant itself. It was as if the plant 
could read your thoughts. This of course, reeked of extrasensory 
perception, which scientists in all walks of life no doubt dismissed 
as sci-fi nonsense. How could it be possible that plants, with no 
central nervous system, could recognise emotions in a human? 

As crazy as it now seems, I seriously believe - simply from the 
scientific discoveries that I have written about in this book - that 
plants are capable of achieving this amazing feat. I also have to 
believe that if plants can do it, so can we, by the very fact that we are 
behaviourally the same, the only difference being that we are not 
consciously aware that we are picking up on other people's emotions 
and intents. Have you ever recognised emotions such as depression 
or happiness in other people when they have simply walked into the 
same room as you? I am sure most scientists would say that it was 
merely visual clues that you are recognising, but maybe there is a 
possibility that you are picking up on other subconscious ones as 
well. Gut instinct might be all about recognising vibrational patterns 



in other people or surrounding areas. As might fear as well. These 
are areas for other people to discuss in other books, but for me they 
are all distinct possibilities based on the ideas that I have already 

The most significant ideas that were discussed in The Secret 
Life of Plants were based on scientific studies conducted from 1966 
onwards by Cleve Backster, who was simply taking the ideas of 
J.C. Bose one stage further. If you recall from Chapter 7, Bose 
conducted his experiments on plants by measuring their electrical 
response to a number of different stimuli and proved beyond 
doubt that plants' growth behaviour could be measured using this 
methodology. Backster developed on Bose's ideas, using much 
more sophisticated electronic measuring devices than had been 
available to Bose sixty years earlier. 

Backster worked for the CIA, specialising in interrogation. 
He was an expert in the use of polygraph machines to interview 
applicants who were looking for employment in the CIA. As a 
young and innovative man, Backster found that this work became 
less and less stimulating and decided to go freelance. So in 1965, he 
set up his own school in New York to teach polygraphic techniques 
which he called the "Backster Research Foundation". It was during 
a quiet night in the office that Backster decided to investigate the 
behaviour of plants and the speed at which water rose from the root 
to the leaf area. He had a large Dracaena plant in a pot in the corner 
of the office that he thought he would experiment on, and he wired 
it up to his polygraph machine. 

The first reaction produced surprising results, completely 
opposite to what Backster had expected, but exactly the results 
that Bose had shown seventy years previously. Plants do not like 
being fed cold water; they go into shock and take time to respond 
positively, and this is exactly what the lie detector graph showed. 



The initial tracing moved in a downward direction, but one minute 
after feeding, the tracing exhibited a "short term change in contour 
similar to a reaction pattern typical of a human subject who might 
have been briefly experiencing the fear of detection". 

For some unknown reason, Backster decided to challenge the 
plant, because the unexpected human contour pattern seemed to 
bring out his competitive nature. He seemed to be saying: if that 
is how you are going to behave, then let's see what you do when I 
do something that a human would react very strongly to, like being 
punched in the face. The only equivalent idea that Backster had, 
other than actually punching the plant, was to hurt it by burning it 
with his cigarette lighter. Imagine this moment! It must have been 
like one of those really scary scenes in a horror movie, when the 
audience is aware that something terrible is about to happen, but 
the unsuspecting doctor has no idea. I can almost hear the music to 
Jaws in the background. 

The room was small, it was close to midnight and there was no- 
one around in the building, just Backster and the Dracaena plant. 
While Backster was searching for his cigarette lighter, knowing he 
had the idea of burning the leaf attached to his polygraph, his ears 
picked up something strange that stopped him in his tracks - the 


Figura 10 - Plant Arjactjon 
at Imaged Inter* ba Bum 



polygraph machine was showing extreme movements. "The very 
moment the imagery of burning that leaf entered my mind, the 
polygraph recording pen moved rapidly to the top of the chart! No 
words were spoken, no touching the plant, no lighting of matches, 
just my clear intention to burn the leaf. I don't know about you, but 
I think I would have immediately run out of the room screaming in 
terror. The image of this reaction can be seen in the graph opposite, 
the intent being shown by the huge jump at the right of the chart. 

This was the first time in history that a recording of someone's 
intent had been captured graphically on paper. Of course, Backster 
did not stop there. Once he had understood the significance of his 
discovery, he continued to make polygraph recordings. It soon 
became obvious that the plant had a strong connection with Backster, 
maybe because he worked in the same room, maybe because 
he was the one who watered it, or maybe it was for a completely 
different reason that science is not aware of. But regardless of why, 
Backster proved that no matter how far from the plant he was, the 
polygraph machine showed a reaction from the plant. In order to 
test his theory, Backster left the plant permanently attached to the 
polygraph and then, using a stopwatch, timed his movements and 
thoughts and then compared them with the images and times on 
the graph paper. It soon became very apparent that when he was 
out of the office, any spontaneous thoughts that he had, such as 
returning early to the office, were picked up by the plant. 

Here's a question. If the plant picked up on Cleve Backster's 
thoughts, what other living organisms would the plant be in tune 
with, and why should they only be human? It appears that it is 
every life form, from bacteria through to elephants. (I use elephants 
under artistic license as Backster did not experiment on them.) In 
one accident, having made a cup of tea, he poured boiling water 
down the dirty drain in the sink of the office. The graph spiked as if 

28 9 


the plant had heard the screams of the billions of tiny bacteria being 
killed simultaneously. 

So why don't we know about all of this? Why is it not general 
knowledge? This is probably because, in science, it is necessary 
before proving a theory to have it tested by others, and then, and 
only then, can the results be confirmed. But similar results were 
not seen when other institutions tried to test Backster's findings, 
and it took thirty years before someone else managed to replicate 
his experiments. In Backster's defence, he argued that the other 
researchers had no idea how to do an experiment that involved 
intent. For example, in one of his experiments that he presented 
to the manufacturer of the polygraph machine, the plant was very 
aware in the experiment when the scientist intended to drop an 
orange on the plant and when to miss the plant. 

There are no textbook studies to offer advice on how to set up such 
an experiment. Backster claimed that no-one managed to replicate 
his very sophisticated, randomized, automated experiments that did 
not involve human emotion. Although, when I say no-one, I mean 
no-one in America. The Soviets easily repeated the experiment, but 
instead of using randomized machines they used hypnotised people 
who had no thoughts of intent, except for those suggested by the 
person who had hypnotised them. These tests were, according to 
Backster, accurate every time, but back in 1972 the Cold War was 
still on and any Soviet scientist's results were not felt to be up to the 
standard of their American counterparts, and were thus dismissed. 

Once Backster had conducted experiments on plants, he went 
on to test the reactions of other living organisms such as the 
bacteria found in yoghurt. When samples of the yoghurt were hurt 
or damaged in an adjoining room, he had no trouble showing that 
the yoghurt bacteria reacted in the same way as the plants. His 
experiments continued with the use of male sperm, and he showed 



that if the donor of the sperm cut himself in a room thirty metres 
away, the sperm would show a reaction when the sample was wired 
up to the machine. In fact, Backster experimented with lots of 
different cellular structures and found that every single one of them 
had a connection with its original host. 

It is perfectly clear that all of this is possible. Each cell within a 
human vibrates at a unique level, and any change in the vibration 
caused by thoughts, pain, happiness, or whatever, will be transmitted 
to the surrounding area. Any vibration in the air will have a direct 
effect on the cell, and if it is tuned to that vibrational wavelength it 
will emit a response - if a single cell from that organism has been 
wired up to a polygraph that measures the electrical change in the 
cell, the machine will pick this up. It is no different from a radio 
signal, where your personal radio is tuned to the correct wavelength 
for each station: any change in the wavelength and you will not be 
able to listen to your programme. 

It is all about vibrations and how living organisms react to each 
other's vibrations. It would seem that the cell is perfectly aware of 
its own natural vibration, and the electrical characteristics of the 
electrons within the cell change when its natural vibration is altered, 
which is reflected in the polygraphs trace. There is no requirement 
for either intelligence or a central nervous system for this response 
to be engendered within a single cell; it is simply the electrons and 
the nucleus of the cell that react to the vibrations. When a vibrational 
disequilibrium occurs, the electrical balance changes. If you can 
accept that this is what happens, the unique properties of plants 
become all too obvious and what might have been extraordinary to 
you before will, I hope, become very logical. 

In 2003, Backster finally wrote his own version of events and 
published his book Primary Perception. This goes into much more 
personal detail than the Secret Lives of Plants and is much more 



authoritative. However, what no doubt was frustrating for Backster 
was that, for thirty years, his ideas had received only ridicule and 
abuse. He was to most scientists a laughing stock. 


In the very early stages of cell development, the first advanced 
organisms were the plants. From these developed insects, birds, fish 
and finally humans, a natural progression over millions of years. So 
in one respect it is possible to say that we all come from plants if 
we look back that far, although that view is not so easy to accept. 
If I were to say that we are similar to fish, is that any easier? If you 
can make that leap, it is not hard to assume that wherever fish came 
from, so did we. 

In the book Your Inner Fish, the author, Neil Shubin, explains 
that as a lecturer in anatomy his background in palaeontology is 
a huge advantage when teaching human anatomy. In order to 
show his students how the human body functions, he turns to 
the structure of fish. If he is lecturing on the nerve paths in the 
brain, the most effective method of showing these is to analyse a 
shark, and with limbs the best road map is fish. The reason Shubin 
gives for this is that the "bodies of these creatures are often simpler 
versions of ours". If this is the case, Bose's assertion that plants and 
animals are behaviourally the same implies that plants and humans 
are the same, if you can accept that we are just overly developed fish. 
If that is true and you make a list of the behaviours of humans, you 
will find that the list is very similar to one showing the behaviour of 

So what do you think the following list is describing - is it fish, 
plants or humans?: 

• Has an ability to communicate with others. 



• Can recognise family members. 

• Has the capability to remember things. 

• Shows signs of fatigue when overstimulated. 

• Contains a nerve system. 

Well, these are in fact five common features of plants. Other 
behavioural habits include: 

• a response to every wavelength, from the long wavelengths 
emanating from distant planets to the ultrafast waves of 
ultraviolet light; 

• an increase in growth when stimulated by sound; 

• a growth in height before a lightning storm. 

It has finally been realised that plants are not just passive objects 
that work solely on the basis of chemical reactions, but are much 
more complicated than that. Research conducted within the last 
few years has finally turned to the unusual behaviour of plants and 
has shown that plants do in fact have memory, planning abilities, 
learning capabilities, complex plant behaviour and even cognition. 

In recent scientific research, it has been shown that plants and 
animals have the following shared patterns of behaviour: 

1. Plants and animals use nearly identical sexual processes. 

2 . Plants develop immunities using processes and mechanisms 
that correspond identically to those in animals. 

3. Animals and plants use the same molecules and pathways to 
drive their own biological clocks. 

4. Plants perform complex information-processing via cell-to- 
cell communication. 

5. All cells and parts of a plant respond in exactly the same way 

2 93 


to electrical stimulation as animals do. 

6. Plants can memorise stressful experiences and can conjure 
up these memories when needing to make decisions about 
future activities. 

7. Plants recognise their siblings. 

8. Plants anticipate future conditions by accurately perceiving 
and responding to reliable environmental cues. 

9. Plants have the potential to make decisions based upon 
responses to gravity, light, moisture and touch. 

10. Amino acids are essential elements for both animals and 
plants. They are involved in several functions such as protein 
synthesis, hormone metabolism, nerve transmission, cell 
growth, production of metabolic energy, base synthesis 
for the nuclear material, nitrogen metabolism and urea 

11. Plants communicate with other plants and herbivores. 

Why, then, do they have similar behavioural characteristics? The 
only conclusion that I can draw is that they all come from the same 
cellular development processes that first started life on Earth, and 
they all developed the same basic behaviours to stimulation from 
light, sound, temperature, atmospheric changes and electromagnetic 
forces. As a consequence, plants, fish and humans have a good deal 
in common. 


It is surprising to learn that most botanists have only recently woken 
up to the fact that plants communicate with each other. In 1983, one 
of the first studies was undertaken to show that, in times of crisis, 
plants of similar species communicate information immediately 
to each other so that they can put up a collective defence. An 



experiment was conducted on young poplar trees in one room 
in which a few leaves from a sample group of fifteen trees were 
physically damaged. Fifteen more, but undamaged, poplar trees 
in another room showed a change in their chemical content in 
response to the damage that had accrued in the first set of trees. 
As one of the scientists was heard to exclaim, when he analysed the 
chemical changes, "Hey - poplars talk." 

Of course, no-one has yet been able to furnish an understanding 
of how plants communicate. All of the science in this area of 
communication refers to chemical signals between plants. It 
is suggested that chemicals somehow float in the air and are 
collected in an unknown way by other plants. My simple alternative 
suggestion is this: do you really think nature would develop such 
an inefficient method of communicating? What would happen on a 
blustery day when the wind was blowing in the wrong direction? It 
would be impossible to communicate danger to plants upwind using 
this method. No, the answer to this riddle lies in the properties of 
vibrations . A damaged leaf emits a vibrational signal that other plants 
which have the same base vibrational wavelength recognise, and this 
change in vibration stimulates a chemical change in every similar 
plant in the area - a very simple and incredibly efficient method of 
communication, one that I believe is one hundred per cent reliable. 
I would argue that this is a perfect system of communication and 
would have dominated evolutionary development. 


Research by Richard Karban of the University of California and 
Kaori Shiojiri of Kyoto University in Otsu, Japan, has revealed that 
some plants are capable of recognising themselves. Experiments 
have shown, using a genetically identical sagebrush plant, that 
two clones communicate and cooperate with one another. This 

2 95 


confirms that plants, just like animals, prefer to help their relatives 
over unrelated individuals: 

Somehow, the clipped plants appeared to be warning their 
genetically identical 
neighbours that an 
attack was imminent, 
and the neighbour 
should somehow try to 
protect itself. But clipped 
plants didn't warn 
unrelated neighbours. 


Karban says he was "pretty surprised" at the results - "It implies that 
plants are capable of more sophisticated behaviour than we imagined." 
Golly, gosh! This discovery was made only in 2009. 1 fear it is going to 
be hard to change mainstream teaching towards accepting that plants 
are so much more sophisticated than scientists will readily accept. 

Sadly, Karban and Kaori believe the plants are communicating using 

When one plant is clipped, or comes under attack from herbivores, 
it emits these chemicals into the air, warning those around it to put 
up a defence, either by filing their leaves with noxious chemicals, 
or by physically moving their stems or leaves in some way to make 
themselves less palatable. 

What is even more depressing is that this research has proven 
that plants recognise each other, but because other scientists do not 
understand the mechanism for the exchange of this information, they 
remain sceptical that this relationship exists in the first place. 




Thanks to Darwin, we all know that plants compete with each 
other - survival of the fittest. However, what we might not have 
been aware of is that plants do not compete with their own siblings. 
Their relationship is very similar to that of animal species, where 
the parents help and nurture their offspring in the hope that they 
will develop into adulthood. It seems that, in this behavioural case, 
plants are again just like 

In a paper by Dudley 
and File in 2007, it was 
shown that the plant 
Cakile edentula was 
able to identify its kin 
in competitive settings 
and react by competing 
less aggressively against Cakile Edentula 

a close relative. When individuals were grown in pots with close 
relatives, root biomass was lower than in individuals grown in the 
vicinity of strangers. This would mean that kin recognition and the 
subsequent reduction in root growth facilitates the development of 
relatives that occupy the neighbouring space. So the parent plant 
does not maximise its growth potential while being surrounded by 
its kin. Other research following on from this paper showed that 
plants surrounded by strangers grow significantly more than those 
surrounded by kin. This seems logically obvious. If scientists had 
investigated vibrations a lot earlier, this would all have been seen 
as common sense: plants behave just like animals, nurturing their 
young and fighting off competition. Plants have yet again been 
shown to be the same as animals. 

In order to provide solutions to this problem, scientists believe 

2 97 


that it is root development that allows plants to identify their kin 
to each other. How can this be? Why do they assume that plants 
recognise each other's roots? What is there in a root that is 
recognisable? As I have said countless times in this book, it is almost 
impossible not to come to the conclusion that plants recognise each 
other through their own individual vibrational signal rather than 
anything else. 

Why have there not been any scientific experiments on plants' 
vibrational communication? In a paper in 2007, Gunther Witzany 
makes a typical statement that seems to be a universally accepted 
interpretation of how plants communicate. He says: 

Chemical molecules are used as signs. They function as signals, 
messenger substances, information carriers and memory 
medium in either solid, liquid or gaseous form, in order to 
guarantee coordination and organisation processes. 

What he should have said is that some plants and some animals 
use chemicals as a form of communication between themselves - 
obvious uses are for finding a mate or for defence purposes, some 
leaves emitting toxins that deter pest infestations. What is missing 
is the fact that this simple answer fails to resolve the fact that plants 
also communicate with each other and with insects and animals 
at distances that are not capable of being achieved via chemical 
emissions, particularly when it is windy. No plant could survive that 
was dependent solely on favourable wind conditions. 

Another quote shows the logic behind current scientific thought : 

In Lima beans, various coordinated defence strategies against 
mite infestation have been discovered. First, they change their 
scent to make them unattractive to the mites, then the plants 
emit scents that are perceived by other plants, which then do 

2 9 8 


precisely the same thing to warn surrounding lima beans before 
the mites even reach them. Some of the emitted substances 
have the effect of attracting other mites that eat the attacking 
red mites. 

I have no doubt that lima beans emit chemicals to fight off mite 
infestation, but what I find very difficult to accept is the simple 
assumption that the whole process is carried out exclusively 
via chemical communication between plants, and even more 
extraordinary is the idea that emitting this chemical scent seems 
to attract other competing mites who must again then be living 
downwind of the plants. I have read numerous papers all saying 
that plants communicate exclusively via chemicals, yet insects and 
animals communicate sometimes with chemicals and sometimes 
with vibrations. Where is the research that acknowledges that they 
communicate both chemically and via vibrations? As I have shown 
in earlier chapters, it is indisputable that plants and animals are 
basically similar in behaviour terms, so if animals and insects 
behave in a certain way, then, by definition, so do plants. 

Other research papers have shown that when you move a plant 
and place it elsewhere, it will remember the identity of its former 
closest neighbours for several months. One interpretation was 
that these plants recognise patterns in neuronal-like networks. 
However, almost twenty years after this research, no-one seems to 
have put two and two together and said that plants recognise the 
vibrational pattern of the plant that they used to be next to. One 
answer lies in the following quote that was published recently in the 
book Rhythms in Plants 20og. The authors, Shabala and Mancuso, 
reflect in their introduction on the fact that there is very limited 
research into plant oscillations (vibrations), for which they give the 
following explanation: 

2 99 


Despite the fact that the rhythmical behaviour is a 
quintessential pattern of life itself most researchers still treat 
oscillations in plants as some unwanted "physiological noise". 

More fool them. 


How does an insect that is no bigger than two millimetres in length 
project its voice against the elements, when the sounds that the insect 
itself can make may be drowned out? The answer is to use vibrations. 
Instead of vibrations through the air in the form of sound, insects 
use vibrations that utilise the mass of organic matter around them. 
Imagine that you are in a crowded square with thousands of people 
around you and you need to communicate a message to a group of 
people at the furthest corner of the square - what options do you 
have if you can't use your voice? As long as they were aware that 
you were going to try some other form of communication, all you 
would have to do would be to bang your shoes hard on the ground 
and your listeners could, simply by placing their ears to the ground 
where they were standing, pick up the vibrational waves caused by 
you hitting your shoes on the paving. And this is in principle how 
small insects communicate over long distances. They simply vibrate 
the leaves or stems of the plants they are sitting on, the vibration 
travels into the ground and along the earth, and it is then picked up 
by all of the plants and vegetative growth in the surrounding area. 
Importantly, studies have also shown that the signal characteristics 
of the insects receiving the information stay the same irrespective 
of the type of plant the sender is resting on. Therefore, it does not 
matter to the insect what type of leaf or plant stem it is sitting on, as 
it will always receive the information. 

All plants give off their own distinctive individual vibrations, 



Vibrating the leaf to communicate 

and it appears that every insect is 
aware of these differences. It is 
estimated that 195,000 different 
insect species use vibrations to 
communicate. Notwithstanding 
that, the frequency the insects 
use varies depending upon the 
type of plant they are resting on. 
In the case of the stink bug (Nezara viridula), an insect that is often 
used in experiments, the difference is significant as the vibration 
can range from 1 to 500 Hz on Bladderpod leaves, whereas on 
London rocket leaves it ranges from 100 to 1000 Hz. 

Insects must somehow be able to understand what type of 
leaf they are resting on to adapt their own individual vibration to 
that of the plant. It has been shown that specific vibrations of the 
plants will closely match those of insects, and for the stink bug the 
plant's natural vibrations and 
those of the insect, work best at 
100 Hz. At different stages of 
its development, the insect will 
utilise different frequencies: 
the young treehopper will use 
short signals to solicit maternal 
care, but the adult will produce 
complex frequency- and amplitude-modulated signals while 
searching for a mate. 

Tree frogs have been shown to use vibrations to communicate 
with other tree frogs in neighbouring trees. In fact, it is likely that 
most vertebrates communicate using vibrations, but very little 
research has been done in this field as most of it is focused on sound 
communication. In one of the few experiments on vertebrates, it 

Tree frog 



was found that the tree frogs use vibrations much more than they 
use sound. They use the power of trees and their ability to transmit 
vibrational signals over great distances to communicate aggression 
in conflicts between two opposing male frogs. Other vertebrates that 
use vibrations include the chameleon, which produces at least three 
distinct patterns of substrate vibration when in the presence of a 
female. Tree frogs from South Asia rhythmically tap their toes on 
plants above breeding sites, which appears to attract males. 


Nature has developed unusual behavioural characteristics in plants 
for a reason, but what that reason is, however, is not always obvious. 
The opposite is true during a thunderstorm. If you analyse a plant's 
behaviour then, it makes complete sense, but the "how it does it" 
question is not as easy to answer. 

I'm sure I don't need to describe a thunderstorm; we all know 
what that is. Most of us have seen many people who all seem to 
respond quite differently, some being scared, others taking it in 
their stride. But what do plants do in a thunderstorm, and if their 
behaviour changes, how do they know that a thunderstorm is 
coming? Let's imagine there is a big storm in the distance, the light 
in the air is growing gloomier, the atmosphere is getting oppressive, 
and it slowly starts to spit with rain. At some point over the next few 
minutes and hours, you know that the electrical charge is going to 
build up so much that a loud bang will emanate from the clouds, and 
if the charge is large enough, that energy will be dissipated in the 
form of lightning. The heavily saturated clouds will then discharge 
their moisture in the form of rain. 

Now, if I were a plant, I would like to know that a large amount 
of water was coming my way because plants like water, and they 
need to absorb it to sustain themselves. Ideally, they want to absorb 

3 02 


as much as possible. Imagine then that, at the same time as they 
picked up the fact that a thunderstorm was on the way, they instantly 
started growing to increase their capacity for water absorption. This 
would allow them to absorb more water than before the storm was 
coming, a very, very clever piece of plant biology. And this actually 
happens. Plants do grow just before a thunderstorm in order to be 
able to gorge on the extra water available. How useful would it be for 
us if, when we were starving hungry, we could somehow increase 
the size of our stomachs in order to allow more food to be absorbed 
at one time, just in case there was no more food expected for the 
next few days. 

So how do plants know that a thunderstorm is coming? 
Obviously, they must be able to pick up on the changes in the 
electrical vibrations in the atmosphere. As I mentioned previously, 
they can recognise every wavelength from the smallest to the largest. 
So a huge change caused by an electrical storm would be easy to 
recognise. How do they pick up on these huge electrical discharges? 
The answer is through their water content, which immediately 
transfers information throughout the plant, stimulating growth 
chemicals and causing the stem and roots to enlarge. These plant 
transformations can be rapid. For some reason, scientists have 
thought of the plant as being slow and docile in the way in which it 
reacts to external stimuli, but certain plants have a reaction time that 
is faster than that of any animal. This is particularly the case with 
the venus fly trap, whose trap shuts in a response time of under a 
tenth of a second. 


Most people would laugh at the possibility that talking to a plant is 
of any use to the plant. I certainly did before I started researching 
the effect that sound waves have on plants, and now that I know a 



lot more about the subject, I find it hard to believe that I took such 
a negative stance, one that was born out of ignorance and prejudice. 
Ignorance of the science, but prejudice towards those believers 
whom I thought were impressionable people, who followed all of 
the quack science that was being peddled by alternative groups. - 
ones that preached a certain New Age lifestyle and belief system. 
Now that I am not so ignorant or prejudiced, the joke is on me. The 
importance of sound should not be underestimated. 

If I were to set up a sound system in a field in the countryside 
and play, for argument's sake, the Beatles' greatest hits at a volume 
that could be heard throughout the field, do you think that the plants 
would react in any way? I would imagine that no-one would be 
easily convinced that this sound could affect the plants significantly. 
But, in fact, a plant reacts to the music in many different biological 
ways. Firstly, its level of potassium and calcium will be changing, 
cell growth will be stimulated, and there will be alternations in the 
level of ATP (the plants' energy content), the amount of nucleic 
acid, the quantity and quality of RNA (involved in protein and DNA 
synthesis), the content of soluble proteins and the activity of the 
enzyme IAA oxidase. In all, many, many factors are changing in 
the plant because of the music that is being played. 

But if this is the case, why is it not common knowledge? Why 
are farmers not looking into this possibility in helping to grow their 
crops? These questions I can't answer. All I can say is that the science 
is there for anyone who wants to go and investigate it. Which is what 
I did, and now I can say quite categorically that playing music to 
plants affects them directly - not always positively, but it stimulates 
them both positively and negatively depending upon the frequency 
(Hz) and strength (the volume or decibel level) of the sound signal. 

Ultrasound, which comprises extremely high-frequency sound 
waves that are not audible to human ears, are already extensively 



used in many different areas, for instance to treat successfully some 
forms of cancer. Ultrasound is also used in welding, cleaning and 
chemical and biological processing. And it is used in hospitals in 
visual imaging, particularly on pregnant women - any parent will 
remember seeing their first three-dimensional, black and white, 
living ultrasound image of their developing child. 

Scientific experiments into the benefits of ultrasound on plants 
are numerous. They have shown that ultrasound waves are very 
efficient at maintaining the shelf-life of fruits and vegetables as 
they can eradicate some harmful bacteria that encourage the fruit 
or vegetable to perish. Obviously, any experiment that can benefit 
the supermarkets will generate good funding, and as this area of 
science has proved to have a commercial basis, there appear to be 
lots of funding and scientific experiments relating to it. 

The earliest experiments involving audible, that is, slower, 
sound waves and their effect on plants go back to Bose in 1907, 
when he clearly discovered that plants are stimulated by sound. 
Between 1907 and 2001, there were virtually no scientific studies of 
any significance on this topic, and then in 2001, scientists working 
in China and Korea wrote a clutch of five significant papers on the 
different effects that sound waves had on plants. Why was there 
a gap of almost one hundred years for a number of papers to be 
published? The reason is that it was considered to be crazy science. 

If I were to ask you this question, what would be your first 
reaction - does talking to plants help them grow? I'm sure the 
answer would be a resounding "no!", because it implies that you are 
somehow creating an emotional response that the plant can pick 
up on, responding according to your attitude towards it. However, 
if you look at the question in a different way and ask whether a 
sound vibration can affect the behaviour of plants, the question is 
completely different and the effect can be measured scientifically. 



Imagine discovering that sitting next to a plant for a few minutes 
a day whispering sweet nothings into the leaves actually helped 
the plant to grow. My common sense also tells me that we all like 
different sounds; some we find jarring, others we find incredibly 
soothing. I know that I react differently to sounds; I don't need a 
scientific paper to tell me I do. And based upon the fact that plants 
and humans are behaviourally the same, it seems logical that plants 
will respond to sound in positive or negative ways. 

I find it very surprising that one of the first modern experiments 
into sounds and plant growth was conducted only late in the 1950s 
by the Indian botanist T.C. Singh, who first looked at the effects of 
music on plants. Singh used a microscope to view the protoplasmic 
streaming in an Asian aquatic plant and discovered that he could 
induce this streaming at different times of the day by activating an 
electrically driven tuning fork. He then experimented with recorded 
South Indian violin music with frequencies in the range of 100- 
600 Hz range, and demonstrated that these frequencies resulted in 
increased plant growth. 

The concept of music affecting plants was later popularised by 
an American housewife, Dorothy Retallack, in her book The Sound 
of Music and Plants, published in 1973. Retallack noticed that the 
plants in her living room, which being exposed to rock music, 
were not growing as quickly as the other plants in her house. She 
subsequently conducted a series of experiments whereby a selection 
of household plants were exposed to three different types of music: 
rock, jazz and semi-classical. The experiments were controlled 
under strict scientific conditions, all the plants being kept in Perspex 
cabinets with the temperature and light strictly regulated. For three 
hours a day, music of different types was played into the boxes, 
and the plants' growth was then measured after four weeks. Later 
experiments showed that the most beneficial music for Retallack's 



plants was Indian devotional music, which caused the plants to 
grow two inches taller than the plants left in silence. These plants 
also leaned towards the speaker. 

Common sense suggests that if I were in an enclosed room 
listening to loud rock music that I was not familiar with for three 
hours every day, I would certainly be trying to break the door down 
to escape. It's not that I don't like loud music or rock music, it's 
just that having unfamiliar rock beats forced upon me would not 
be a pleasant experience. I can imagine that my behaviour would 
definitely change and my mood would almost certainly become 
affected by the sounds. On the other hand, three hours of classical 
music, even though I admit to not ever having bought a classical 
record, would not result in such a change of behaviour because the 
tones of the music do not affect my behaviour in the same way. I 
like listening to some classical music as much as any popular music. 
In fact, some music performed by the cello, violin and saxophone 
affects me in an incredibly positive way, irrespective of the genre 
it is part of. It's obvious when I think about it - some music really 
relaxes me, makes me feel good and can completely change my 
mood. But why does it do this? Where is the science that proves to 
me something that I subconsciously already know? 

An experiment in 2007 looked at the effects of different musical 
elements on the root growth of onions. The researchers looked at 
specific elements of music, such as rhythmically, dynamically 
changing lyrics or rhythmic classical music, and compared their 
effects on onion roots. The onions in group 1 listened to Wagner and 
Mussorgsky, and the onions in group 2 listened to Mozart, Chopin, 
Schubert and Tchaikovsky. The onions were subjected to the music 
for six hours a day for ten days. The results concluded that both sets 
of sound improved root elongation, but in both groups the sounds 
that involved lyrics increased growth the most. 




There are hundreds of scientific papers proving that plants make you 
healthier. I am not referring to herbal treatment here, but proof that 
simply being around plants can have positive health benefits. These 
are not small studies that investigate small-scale tree-hugging; quite 
the opposite - these are major international studies. You might ask, 
therefore, that if there are so many benefits, why do we not know 
about them? Why didn't I know that a plant can have any benefits? 
The answer, as in so many other instances, is that the scientists do 
not know they have proved it - in fact, they would probably run a 
mile if they thought that there was any science in this at all. How 
could they raise funding for future projects if their research were in 
any way mixed up with the idea of tree-hugging? But let me give you 
an example of a study that I believe points towards the idea that trees 
help people who are ill. 

The title of this research gives it all away - "Children with 
attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park". This 
paper, written in 2009 by Taylor and Kuo, can suggest one of two 
things: either that there is something about going to a park that 
helps to restore the children's attention, or that objects within the 
park are creating an environment that somehow stimulates the 
body to improve its concentration levels. It is pretty obvious which 
hypothesis all the scientists choose - the first one, the safer option. 
I am going to propose a different interpretation of the study's 
findings, and I hope you will agree that my solution fits the facts. 
I hope my interpretation will change people's opinion of the role 
of nature in health and will in fact lead, in the future, to free health 
treatment for millions of people simply by making sure they are 
near to plants. 

Taylor and Kuo's study was incredibly methodical in its design. 

3 08 


Seventeen children aged seven to twelve, who were all clinically 
diagnosed with ADHD, experienced three environments: a city park, 
a downtown walk and a neighbourhood walk. E ach walk lasted twenty 
minutes, and their walks in the different environments were spaced 
one week apart. After each walk, the children's concentration levels 
were measured using 
approved measuring 
techniques for children 
with ADHD. The 
conclusion of the 
study was that twenty 
minutes in a park 
setting was sufficient 
to elevate attention 
performance relative to 
the other walks, and that '"Doses of nature' might serve as a safe, 
inexpensive, widely accessible new tool in the tool kit for managing 
ADHD symptoms." 

If there is this positive affect for children with ADHD, do 
you not think it would work for everyone? I would argue that all 
school children should have some of their classes outside, amongst 
the plants, to improve their concentration levels. One study of 
forty schools with more than four hundred students found that 
"environmentally based curricula were linked with a whole range 
of benefits, including increased engagement and enthusiasm for 
learning and higher scores on standardized tests in reading, writing, 
maths, science and social studies". 

Of course, the ADHD study proves nothing in terms of an 
underlying mechanism; I use it only to introduce an idea. The park in 
question was not described so I have no idea what was in it - whether 
it was a wooded park, one with just grass or a combination of the two. 



But the study does say that the children just walked in the park. The 
authors are very specific about this - there was no running around, 
no exercise, just walking. So there must be something about the park 
that was causing the children's behaviour to change. The only obvious 
difference between the three settings is the fact there are a lot of plants 
in a park, but this of course does not prove one thing or another. It 
could simply be the fact that the park stimulated a psychological change 
in the children's attitude, and the power of the brain then changed their 
biological make-up, allowing them to have an increased concentration 
level. It could also be that the colour green somehow affected the 
children's mood, as it has been shown that this colour affects behaviour. 

So, in order to narrow the choices, let's look at a number of other 
studies into the effect that changes in the environment can have on 
mental illness. One large public health report that investigated the 
association between green spaces and mental health concluded that 
"access to nature can significantly contribute to our mental capital and 
wellbeing". But what is meant by "nature"? In the study, the authors 
refer to nature as simply being a park or grassy area within an urban 
environment. They state that access to such an area has wide-ranging 
benefits on our health because "a safe, natural environment can be a 
break from our busy lives - a place to get some fresh air, to exercise or 
play - a place to go and relax". 

Yes, that is all true, but it does not say why the green space? What 
is it about it that is better? The authors' conclusion is therefore that the 
benefits of the park derive from the ability to relax in a safe and peaceful 
environment where the air quality is better, and I have no doubt that 
these are all beneficial qualities. It would be interesting to analyse the 
level of mental health issues of those people who work as gardeners 
in parks, so that we could consider all of the above issues to see which 
factors play the most significant role. Supposing it was discovered that 
these workers did not suffer from any mental health problems; one 



could then conclude that the benefits of the park were nothing to do 
with the peaceful environment as the gardeners would obviously be 
doing strenuous and noisy work. It would have to be something else 

Irrespective of the reasons why for the moment, the report does 
agree that "safe, green spaces may be as effective as prescription drugs 
in treating some forms of mental illnesses". In England, prescribing of 
drugs for ADHD to under 16s went up by 33% between 2005 and 2007. 
Maybe doctors need to consider other solutions to this condition such as 
recommending a walk in the park - ADHD levels would be improved, and 
everyone would benefit. But obviously doctors can't just recommend this 
as there is no science to explain it. Who would believe that plants could be 
the factor making the difference? The science showing an effect is clearly 
there, but the explanations are definitely not. 

One possible answer is provided by psychologists in the study 
entitled "The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature". This was a 
thorough review of the health benefits that nature can provide, and it 
quoted from many past studies that have clearly proved this. However, 
these scientists turned to psychology to provide the reasons why nature 
is so beneficial. According to Attention Restoration Theory (ART): 

...interacting with environments rich with inherently fascinating 
stimuli (e.g., sunsets) invoke voluntary attention modestly, 
allowing directed-attention mechanisms a chance to replenish 
... So, the logic is that, after an interaction with natural 
environments, one is able to perform better on tasks that 
depend on directed-attention abilities. 

Because nature is so successful in providing us with health 
benefits, it has created a whole gamut of lectures, books, articles, 
conferences, discussions, contracts, theories and professorships in 
psychology alone. It is going to be hard to convince those involved that 



the answer lies simply in vibrations and has nothing whatsoever to do 
with psychology - particularly as this theory is already thirty years old 
and still going strong. But, irrespective of the reasons why the natural 
environment improves our behaviour, this study confirmed yet again 
that walking for only thirty-five minutes amongst trees improved the 
participant's memory abilities by 20%. By comparison, those subjected 
to a busy street did not improve at all. 

Countless studies have shown that children show significant 
psychological and physiological effects in terms of their health 
and well being when they interact with plants. They demonstrate 
that children function better cognitively and emotionally in green 
environments and have more creative play in green areas. So what 
is it about nature that can have these significant effects? Sadly 
no-one provides any answer for this besides the ones I have 
already mentioned. 

Is it possible to prove that this effect is caused primarily by 
plants themselves? Yes, and very simply. If you take all of the other 
factors out and just measure only the effect of plants on behaviour, 
this should leave no area of doubt that the plants - and nothing else 
- are the cause. So how do you do a study of this sort? Very easily, 
I am pleased to say, simply by using indoor plants. At least thirty 
different studies over the past fifteen years have all investigated 
the relationship between plants and behaviour. There have been 
tests related to word associations, pain tolerance, stress recovery, 
task performances, etc. And the majority of them have found a 
distinct relationship. 

In 1976, fifteen people with severe psychopathology had a 
geranium plant placed on their dining table while they had their 
lunchtime meals. Over four weeks, there were significant changes 
in the amount of conversation that took place between the patients, 
a significant increase in mean time spent in the dining room and an 



increase in the amount 
of food consumed. 
In 1996, a study 
involving ninety-six 
subjects analysed the 
changes that seventeen 
plants brought about 
when placed in a 
computer laboratory. 
The treatment group, 
although only exposed to the laboratory for fifteen minutes, showed 
a 12% improved reaction time, lower stress reactivity and a faster 
stress recovery. They reported higher attentiveness levels and less 
fatigue. Overall, they had a 21% lower total symptom score than the 
unexposed group. Similar levels of response were found in a study 
that placed twenty-three plants in a radiology department; the mean 
symptom score of the staff was reduced by 25.6%. 

I won't go through all the different studies that I have found, as 
that would become too boring to read, but you will have to take my 
word for it that many different studies show a relationship between 
indoor plants and behaviour, very similar to what has been reported 
in the experiments showing the benefits of walking in the park. I 
will not say that it proves the plants are the cause, but for me it 
strongly suggests that plants affect our behaviour and our health. 
There is no doubt in my mind that the benefits of being close to 
nature are produced by the plants themselves somehow affecting 
our biological make-up, and that this can only be achieved if their 
vibrational element is affecting ours via our body's water content. 


As there is no actual proven scientific explanation for the health 

3 J 3 


benefits of a tree, I had to turn to the man who gave me the initial 
idea in the first place, the strange healer whom I mentioned in the 
Introduction. He explained it to me in very simple terms that made 
complete sense, once I understood the nature of vibrations. He used 
the example of a headache to explain how trees affect our health. He 
said that the trees give us a "human reboot" - just as we turn the 
computer off and back on when it does not work, so the tree does the 
same to our body. In the healer's terms, a headache is simply a pain 
caused by a misaligned vibration sitting next to a normal vibration, 
the pain being caused by the mismatch between the vibrations. In 
order to get rid of the pain, all that is needed is to realign the two 
vibrations to be the healthy one. 

And this is exactly what the tree does; it synergises the vibrations 
by altering every vibration in our body. So when you approach a tree, 
the vibrations it sends out immediately start to change the vibrational 
element of the water in your body, which then changes all of the 
vibrations that are causing the pain. For argument's sake, let's say 
that the tree vibration increases the speed of all of the vibrations in 
the body so that both the normal and abnormal ones speed up. All of 
the vibrations are then taken to a new level in parity with each other, 
so that there is no misalignment in the vibrations and therefore 
no pain. Once you walk away from the tree, the vibrations return 
to their natural level, but the incorrect, misaligned ones have been 
re-booted back to their healthy level. This is, however, not necessarily 
going to get rid of the cause of the problem - it just gets rid of 
the pain. 

Obviously, I am not suggesting that trees can cure all illnesses 
,as some viral vibrations might be of such a frequency that the 
tree cannot affect them, but in the simple case of a headache, the 
vibrations must for some reason be such that the tree has an effect. 
It would be very interesting to test out many different illnesses with 



a large group of volunteers to see which illnesses trees can help. 
Probably, however, such research is not necessary as all that is 
required is for historians to delve into the archives to see what the 
ancient civilisations discovered and use their knowledge instead. 
It would not surprise me to learn that many South American 
Amazonians might already know the answer to this without having 
to read a book; it is probably common knowledge to them in their 
everyday treatments. 

My book has now gone full circle. If you remember, in the 
Introduction I described my son's experience of touching a tree and 
how it made him feel sick. That initial reaction was the catalyst for 
this book, and as a result I started to research all that there was to 
know about trees and their effect on us. As you might have noticed, 
I have not quoted from any study on that subject because, as far as 
I can make out, none has yet been conducted. My advice to anyone 
who might be considering initiating research into the relationship 
between trees and health is that they need to know the following: 

1. Do not assume that men's, women's and children's reactions 
will be the same. 

2. Every plant is different, so choose each plant for a reason. 

3. Plants have a lunar cycle, so some plants behave differently at 
particular points in the lunar cycle. 

4. Choose big, healthy examples as using sick plants might affect 
the results. 

5. Keep away from plants that are near stagnant water. 

6. Don't look at health studies that have been conducted in the 
past; look for new ones. There is no reason why trees cannot 
be beneficial for a range of different illnesses and not just the 
minor ones that have been researched so far. 

7. Make sure that the study takes place over a long period rather 

3 J 5 


than just a few weeks. 

These ideas might seem obvious to anyone who works with 
plants, but I have not found the majority of them mentioned in 
any scientific paper over the last fifty years. All of them seem like 
concepts that we would take for granted, but it seems that none of 
the scientists involved in plant behaviour acknowledges that plants 
are incredibly sophisticated and have to be handled accordingly, just 
as with a specific species of animal. 


I would like to end this chapter on an anecdotal story, provided 
by my stepfather, Michael Miles. He was brought up on a farm in 
Somerset, England, owned by his father, that had been in the family 
for generations. Michael had never been a farmer, but every six 
months or so while writing this book, I would go down and visit my 
mother and stepfather in their cottage in Somerset. I would often 
recount to them the different ideas I had encountered, particularly 
those related to trees, to see what reaction they had to my ideas. 
What shocked me more than anything was that absolutely nothing 
that I told Michael was new to him. Very early on in my research, I 
told him that each tree had a planetary relationship associated with 
its growth cycles. He told me, very matter of factly, that he knew this 
and that he personally was quite aware he had a special relationship 
with beech trees that went beyond anything I had told him. 

When I had finally finished the book, I happened to visit them 
and described the outline of this chapter. What Michael related to 
me that weekend came as a bolt of lightning. As we were sitting 
around the table having dinner, he told me that when he was young, 
his mother used to tell him that if he had a headache, it was very 
easy to cure - all he had to do was take a walk in the local woods. At 



this point, I was a little bit speechless. This was an aspect of trees 
that I was fully aware of, but as there were no scientific studies to 
prove it, I was not going to include it in this book. However, as 
Michael readily came forward with this information, I thought 
why not? Maybe there are lots of other people who know about 
this already, and all it will take is a bit of confirmation from others, 
before they publicly acknowledge it, having previously tried to avoid 
any ridicule. Michael told me he had never expressed his ideas to 
anyone else as he assumed that it was common knowledge. Maybe 
like so many ideas that have disappeared, this knowledge has gone 
underground and been all but forgotten. It occurred to me that it was 
possible for everything I thought I had discovered to be in fact old 
news; something known 
about for generations. 
Yet for some reason, 
contemporary society had 
ignored it and chosen to 
erase it from our way of 

So, in order to 
reintroduce these old 
ideas into mainstream 

Touching a tree can remove headaches 

thinking, I want to attempt 

to get as many people as possible to participate in a study on trees. 
I intend to include a section on my website, www.brindedbyscience. , where everyone can plot on a map an individual tree in a park 
or public space that they feel has helped them in some way. Maybe 
it has made them feel happy, it has looked beautiful, has helped 
cure a headache, restored or improved their attention, or anything 
that they want to relate. In this way, maybe if we can get enough 
people involved, we can show scientists that there is overwhelming 

3 J 7 


anecdotal evidence that plants and trees can be part of every doctor's 
health treatments for people with, for example, depression or 
ADHD. Maybe even those people who suffer from hangovers or 
migraines might also want to participate and see the results or 
outcomes. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could start to think like 
those ancient wise men who knew so much that now seems to have 
been forgotten? 

I also plan to introduce a similar section concerning sleep 
disorders on the website, as I am convinced that we all sleep 
differently during the different lunar cycles, and that our sleep 
patterns are definitely disturbed by a full moon. If everyone could 
keep a sleep diary, it would be possible to publicise this fact and 
change the way that we look at sleep and the lunar cycles for if these 
can affect our sleep, what else might they be able to do? 



3 J 9 





3 21 



Becker R, Selden G (1985) The Body Electric. Harper Paperbacks. 
Chapter 1: Vibrations 

Adey WR (2004) Potential therapeutic applications of nonthermal 
electromagnetic fields: ensemble organization of cells in tissue as a factor 
in biological field sensing. In: Rosch PJ, Markov MS (eds) Bioelectromagnetic 
Medicine, pp. 1-5. Informa Healthcare. 

Aon M, Cortassa S, O'Rourke B (2008) Mitochondrial oscillations in physiology 
and pathophysiology. In: Maroto M, Monk N (eds) Cellular Oscillatory Mechanisms, 
Chapter 8. Landes Bioscience and Apringer science + business media. 

Bennet-Clark H (1998) Effects as constraints in insect sound communication. 
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 353, pp. 407-419. 

Benveniste J (2004) A fundamental basis for the effects of EMFs in biology and 
medicine: the interface between matter and function. In: Rosch PJ, Markov MS 
(eds) Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, pp. 207-211. Informa Healthcare. 

Casas J, Bacher S, Tautz J, Meyhofer R, Pierre D (1998) Leaf movements and air 
movements in a leafminer-parasitoid system. Biological Control, 11, pp. 147-153. 

Cocroft RB, Shugart HJ, Konrad KT, Tibbs K (2006) Variation in plant substrates 
and its consequences for insect vibrational communication. Ethology, 112, pp. 

Cold A, Zorovic M, Millar J (2007) Vibrational communication along plants by 
the stink bugs Nezara viridula and Murgantia histrionica. Behavioural Processes, 75, 
pp. 40-54. 

Cremer L, Heckl M, Petersson BAT (2005) Structure-borne Sound, 3rd edn. 

Crile G (1926) A Bipolar Theory of Living Processes. Macmillan. 
Crile G (1936) The Phenomena of Life. Heinemann. 

Engstrom S (2004) Magnetic field generation and dosimetry. In: Rosch PJ, 
Markov MS (eds) Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, pp. 39 - 40. Informa Healthcare. 



Ewald PP, Poschl T, Prandtl L (1936) The Physics of Solids and Fluids. Blackie & 

Hankey A (2004) Are we close to a theory of energy medicine? Journal of 
Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10, pp. 83-86. 

Kane S (2002) Introduction to Physics in Modern Medicine. CRC Press. 

Lakhovsky 0(1925) The Waves that Heal. An Account of the Theories of M. George 

Liboff AR (2004) Signal shapes in electromagnetic therapies: a primer. In: Rosch 
PJ, Markov MS (eds) Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, pp. 17-19. Informa Healthcare. 

Loomis W (2008) cAMP oscillations during aggregation of dictyostelium. In: 
Maroto M, Monk N (eds) Cellular Oscillatory Mechanisms, Chapter 3. Landes 
Bioscience and Apringer science + business media. 

Lutkenhaus J (2008) Min Oscillation in Bacteria. In: Maroto M, Monk N (eds) 
Cellular Oscillatory Mechanisms, Chapter 4. Landes Bioscience and Apringer 
science + business media. 

Miklavcic D, Kotnik T (2004) Electroporation for electrochemotherapy and gene 
therapy. In: Rosch PJ, Markov MS (eds) Bioelectromagnetic Medicine. Informa 

Mitchell, E (2004) Quantum holography: a basis for the interface between mind 
and matter. In: Rosch PJ, Markov MS (eds) Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, pp. 
153-159. Informa Healthcare. 

Oschman JL (2004) Recent developments in bioelectromagnetic medicine. In: 
Rosch PJ, Markov MS (eds) Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, pp. 77-90. Informa 

Palmeirim I, Rodrigues S, Dale J, Maroto M (2008) Development on time. In: 
Maroto M, Monk N (eds) Cellular Oscillatory Mechanisms, Chapter 5. Landes 
Bioscience and Apringer science + business media. 

Prato FS (2004) Image-guided electromagnetic therapy. In: Rosch PJ, Markov 
MS (eds) Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, pp. 51-53. Informa Healthcare. 

Rougemont J, Naef F (2008) Stochastic phase oscillator models for circadian 

3 2 3 


clocks. In: Maroto M, Monk N (eds) Cellular Oscillatory Mechanisms, Chapter 10. 
Landes Bioscience and Apringer science + business media. 

Saxton-Burr H (1972) Blueprint for Immortality. Neville Spearman. 

Shabala S, Shabala L, Gradmann D, Chen Z, Newman I, Mancuso S (2006) 
Oscillations in plant membrane transport: model predictions, experimental 
validation and physiological implications. Journal of Experimental Botany, 57, pp. 

Thul R, Bellamy T, Roderick H, Bootman M, Coombes S (2008) Calcium 
oscillations. . In: Maroto M, Monk N (eds) Cellular Oscillatory Mechanisms, 
Chapter 1. Landes Bioscience and Apringer science + business media. 

Travassos M, Pierce N (2000) Acoustics, context and function of vibrational 
signalling in a lycaenid butterfly-ant mutualism. Animal Behaviour, 60, pp. 

Volkov A, Carrell H, MarkinV (2009) Biologically closed electrical circuits in 
venus flytrap. Plant Physiology, 149, pp. 1661-1667. 

Waller M (1961) Chladni Figures, a Study in Symmetry. G. Bell & Sons. 

Wood AB (1941) A Textbook of Sound. G. Bell & Sons. 

Chapter 2: Water 

Alexandersson O (1976) Living Water: Viktor Schauberger and the Secrets of Natural energy. 

Andocs G, Vincze GY, Szasz O, Szendro P, Szasz A (2009) Effect of curl-free potentials on 
water. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 28, pp. 166-181. 

Ayrapetyan SN (2006) Cell Aqua Medium as a Primary Target for the Effect of Electromagnetic 
Fields. Bioelectromagnetics Current Concepts. Springer. 

Batmanghelidj F (1983) A new and natural method of treatment of peptic ulcer disease. 
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 5, pp. 203-205. 

Bellavite P, Signorini A (2002) The Emerging Science of Homeopathy: Complexity, 
Biodynamics and Nanopharmacology, 2nd edn. North Atlantic Books. 

3 2 4 


Beloussov LV, Voeikov VL, Martynyuk VS (eds) (2007) Biophotonics and Coherent Systems 
in Biology. Springer. 

Burns JT (1997) Cosmic Influences on Humans, Animals and Plants: An Annotated 
Bibliography. Scarecrow Press. 

Capel-Boute C (1990) Water as receptor of environmental information: a challenge 
to reprodudbility in experimental research, the Piccardi effect. In: Tomassen GJM, de 
Graaf W, Knoop AA, Hengeveld R (eds) Geo-Cosmic Relations: The Earth and its Macro- 
Environment. PUDOC. 

Coats C (1996) Living Energies: Viktor Schauberger's Brilliant Work with Natural Energy 
Explained. Gateway Books. 

Cooke R, Kuntz I (1974) The properties of water in biological systems. Annual Review of 
Biophysics and Bioengineering 3, pp. 95-126. 

Del Giudice E, Preparata G (1988) A new QED picture of water: understanding a 
few fascinating phenomena. In: Sassaroli E, Srivastava Y (eds) Macroscopic Quantum 
Coherence, pp. 108-129. World Scientific. 

DeMeo J (2009) Water as a resonant medium for unusual external environmental 
factors. Lecture at the Fourth Annual Conference on the Physics, Chemistry and Biology 
of Water, Mount Snow, Vermont, USA. 

Elia V, Napoli E, Germano R (2007) The memory of water: an almost deciphered enigma. 
Dissipative structures in extremely dilute aqueous solutions. Homeopathy, 96, pp. 

Emoto M (1999) The Message from Water. Vol 1 Hado pubHshing 

Emoto M (2004) The Healing Power of Water. Hayhouse. 

Emoto M (2006) The Secret life of Water. Beyond words publishing 

Emoto M (2006) Water Crystal Healing. Music and Images to Restore Your Well Being. Atria. 

Emoto M (2007) The Miracle of Water. Beyond Words. 

Foletti A, Lisi A, Ledda M, de Carlo F, Grimaldi S (2009) Cellular ELF signals as a possible 
tool in informative medicine. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 28, pp. 71-79. 

3 2 5 


Gant N, Stinear CM, Byblow WD ( 2010) Carbohydrate in the mouth 
immediately facilitates motor output. Brain Research, 1350, pp. 151— 158. 

Giudice E, Tedeschi A (2009) Water and autocatalysts in living matter. 
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 28, pp. 46-52. 

Glasgow RDV (2009) The Concept of Water. R. Glasgow Books. 

Gohar IM, Barkdoll BD (2001) Particle transport in vertical vortex flow. 
Proceedings of the Water Resources Engineering 2001 Conference of the 
American Society of Civil Engineers, Orlando, Florida, USA. Section: 1, Chapter: 

Gorbaty YE, Demianets YN (1985) An X-ray study of the effect of pressure on the 
structure of liquid water. Molecular Physics, 55, pp. 571-588. 

Grigioni M, Daniele C, Morbiducci U, Del Gaudio C, D'Avenio G, Balducci 
A, Barbaro V (2005) A mathematical description of blood spiral flow in 
vessels: application to a numerical study of flow in arterial bending. Journal of 
Biomechanics, 38, pp. 1375— 1386. 

Hitoshi T, Yoshihiro O, Nobuhiro I et al. (2004) Clinical significance of clockwise 
spiral blood flow in abdominal aortic aneurysm observed by ultrasound Doppler 
imaging. Journal of Medical Ultrasonics, 31, pp. J239-J247. 

Houston JG, Gandy SJ, Sheppard DG, Dick JBC, Belch JJF, Stonebridge PA 
(2003) 2-Dimensional flow quantitative MRI of aortic arch blood flow patterns: 
effect of age, gender and presence of carotid atheromatous disease on the 
prevalence of spiral blood flow. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 18, pp. 

Houston J, Gandy S, Milne W, Dick J, Belch J, Stonebridge P (2004) Spiral laminar 
flow in the abdominal aorta: a predictor of renal impairment deterioration in patients 
with renal artery stenosis? Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 19, pp. 1786-91. 

Jahnke T, Sann H, Havermeier T et al. (2010) Ultrafast energy transfer between water 
molecules. Nature Physics, 6, pp. 139-142. 

Janin J (1999) Wet and dry interfaces: the role of solvent in protein-protein and 
protein-DNA recognition. Structure, 7, pp. 277-279. 

Knight D, Stromberg J. Centre for Implosion Research, 



Linton J (2010) What is Water? The History of a Modern Abstraction. University of 
British Columbia Press. 

Lo S, Li W, Huang S. Water clusters in life. Medical Hypotheses, 54, pp. 948-953. 

Ludwig W. The memory of water, 

Martensson L, Wallin G (2008) Sterile water injections as treatment for low back 
pain during labour: a review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and 
Gynaecology, 48, pp. 369-374. 

Mates R (2010) Hunger and thirst: issues in measurement and prediction of 
eating and drinking. Physiology and Behaviour, 100, pp. 22-32. 

Ostrander S (1972) Astrological Birth Control. Prentice-Hall. 

Park JB, Santos JM, Hargreaves BA, Nayak KS, Sommer G, Hu BS, Nishimura 
DG (2005) Rapid measurement of renal artery blood flow with ungated spiral 
phase-contrast . Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 21, pp. 590-595. 

Paul MC, Larman A (2009) Investigation of spiral blood flow in a model of 
arterial stenosis. Medical Engineering and Physics, 31, pp. 1195-203. 

Pfeiffer E (1935) Practical Guide to the Use of the Bio-dynamic Preparations. Rudolf 
Steiner Publishing. 

Pfeiffer E (1947) Soil Fertility, Renewal and Preservation. Faber & Faber. 

Piccardi G (1962) The Chemical Basis of Medical Climatology. Charles Thomas. 

Popp F-A (2002) Biophotonics - a powerful tool for investigating and 
understanding life. In: What is Life? Scientific Approaches and Philosophical 
Positions. Series on the Foundations of Natural Science and Technology, Volume 
4, pp. 279-306. World Scientific Publishing. 

Reich W (1973) The discovery of the orgone V0I.2 : The Cancer Biopathy.New York : 
Farrar, Straus and Giroux Inc., 1973. 

Roy E, Tiller WA, Bell I, Hoover MR (2005) The structure of liquid water: novel 
insight from materials research; potential relevance to homeopathy. Materials 
Research Innovations, 9, pp. 78-103. 

Roy, R. et al. The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials 

3 2 7 


Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy MATERIALS RESEARCH 
INNOVATIONS VOL 9; NUMB 4, ; 2005, 98-102 -- SPRINGER - 2005 

Rubik, B. Studies and Observations on Frequency-Treated Water, Electrolyzed 
Water, and Human Blood, Abstract for Water Conference, August, 2010 

Schauberger V (1998) Nature as Teacher. Gateway Books. 

Schauberger V (1998) Water Wizard. Gateway Books. 

Schauberger V (2000) The Fertile Earth: Nature's Energies in Agriculture, Soil 
Fertilisation and Forestry. Gateway. 

Schauberger V (2001) The Energy Evolution (translated by C. Coats). Gateway. 

Schiff M (1995) The Memory of Water: Homeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the 
New Science. Thorsons. 

Schwenk T (1965) Sensitive Chaos: The Creation of Flowing Forms in Water and Air. 
Steiner Press. 

Szent-Gyorgyi A (xxxx) Biology and pathology of water. Perspectives in Biology 
and Medicine, Winter 1971, 239-249? 

Szent-Gyorgyi A (1968) Biolectronics. Science, 161, 988-990? 

Tiller W. Psychoenergetic science: expanding today's science to include human 

Treven M, Talkenberger PP Environmental Medicine. A New Age of Medicine. Moewig 

Vermassen F, Dick J, Houston JG, Stonebridge PA (2008) Spiral laminar flow: an 
examination of this critical blood flow pattern and the early results of a first in man 
study. Poster presentation at XXII European Society for Vascular Surgery meeting, 

Voeikov VL (2007) Fundamental Role of Water in Bioenergetics. Biophotonics and 
Coherent Systems in Biology. Springer. 

Wilkes J (2003) Flowforms: The Rhythmic Power of Water. Floris Books. 

3 28 


Chapter \. The Sun and The Moon: Madness, Menstruation and Manure 

Ahmed F. Quinn T, Dawson J, Walters M (2008) A link between lunar phase 
and medically unexplained stroke symptoms: an unearthly influence? Journal of 
Psychosomatic Research, 65, pp. 131— 133. 

Ali AA (1993) Rhythms in Fishes. NATO Science Series A. Springer. 

Ali Y, Rahme R, Matar N et al. (2008) Impact of the lunar cycle on the incidence of 
intracranial aneurysm rupture: myth or reality. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, 
no, pp. 462-465. 

Allen E (1933) The irregularity of the menstrual function. American Journal of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology, pp. 705-9. 

Babayev E, Allahverdiyeva A (2007) Effects of geomagnetic activity variations on the 
physiological and psychological state of functionally healthy humans: some results of 
Azerbaijani studies. Advances in Space Research, 40, pp. 1941-1951. 

Barnwell FH, Brown FA (1964) Organismic responses to very weak magnetic fields. 
Proceedings of the 1st Biomagnetics Symposium. 

Beauchamp D, Labrecque G (2007) Chronobiology and chronotoxicology of 
antibiotics and aminoglycosides. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 59(9-10), pp. 

Beran G (1972) Blood coagulation studies at different localities and correlations with 
the chemical test of Piccardi. Journal of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research, 3, pp. 207-208. 

Bhattacharjee C, Bradley P, Smith M, Scally AJ, Wilson BJ (2000) Do animals bite 
more during a full moon? Retrospective observational an analysis. BMJ, 321, pp. 

Brock M (1983) Seasonal rhythmicity in lymphocyte blastogenic responses of mice 
persists in a constant environment. Journal of Immunology, 130, pp. 2586-2588. 

Brown FA (1962) Responses of the planarian, Dugesia and the protozoan, 
Paramecium, to very weak horizontal magnetic fields. Biological Bulletin, 123, pp. 

Brown F, Chow C (1973) Interorganismic and environmental influences through 
extremely weak electromagnetic fields. Biological Bulletin, 144, pp. 437-461. 

3 2 9 


Brown F, Chow C (1973) Lunar-correlated variations in water uptake by bean 
seeds. Biological Bulletin, 145, pp. 265-278. 

Brown FA, Jr, Brett WJ, Bennett MF, Barnwell FH (i960) Magnetic response of 
an organism and its solar relationship. Biological Bulletin, 118, pp. 367-381. 

Brown FA, Jr, Webb HM, Brett WJ (i960) Magnetic response of an organism and 
its lunar relationships. Biological Bulletin, 118, pp. 382-392. 

Burns J (1997) Cosmic Influences on Humans, Animals and Plants: An Annotated 
Bibliography. Scarecrow Press. 

Chapman S, Morrell S (2000) Barking mad? Another lunatic hypothesis bites the 
dust. British Medical Journal, 321, pp. 1561-1563. 

Cook E (1997) A new assessment of possible solar and lunar forcing of the 
bidecadal drought rhythm in the western United States. Journal of Climate, 10, pp. 

Currie R (1987) Climatically induced cyclic variations in United States corn yield 
and possible economic implications. Cycles (Pittsburgh), May/June, pp. 78-84. 

Currie R, Wyatt T, O'Brian D (1993) Deterministic signals in European fish 
catches, wine harvests and sea level. International Journal of Climatology, 13, pp. 

De Leon FC-P, Santillan-Doherty AM, Camacho FP et al (2004) Lunar and seasonal 
rhythms and childhood mortality. Biological Rhythm Research, 34, pp. 475-484. 

Dichev I, James T (2001) Lunar Cycle Effects In Stock Returns. Working paper. 
University of Michigan Business School. 

Dorman LI (2005) Space weather and dangerous phenomena on the earth: 
principles of great geomagnetic storms forecasting by online cosmic ray data. Annaks 
Geophysicae, 23, 2997-3002. 

Edwards L (1998) The Vortex of Life. Nature's Patterns in Space and Time (including 
supplements). Floris books 

Endres K, Schad W (2002) Moon Rhythms in Nature: How Lunar Cycles Affect Living 
Organisms. Floris Books. 

Eugen J (1968) New Dimensions in Birth Control (Cosmobiological Birth Control). 



Foster FP 1889 The periodicity and duration of the menstrual flow. New York 
Medical Journal is 1889, vol 49, 610-611 

Foster R, Kreitzman L (2005) Rhythms of Life: The Biological Clocks that Control the 
Daily Lives of Every Living Thing. Profile books 

Foster R, Roenneberg T (2008) Human responses to the geophysical daily, annual 
and lunar cycles. Current Biology, 18, pp. 784-794. 

Foundation for the Study of Cycles (1989) Annual Conference, 9-i2th March, Irvine, 

Gao Q (2009) Lunar phases effect in Chinese stock returns. Paper presented at 
the International Conference on Business Intelligence and Financial Engineering, 
24-261I1 July, Beijing. 

Garsd A, Shifrine M (1982) Environmental factors affecting seasonal variation in 
immunity of clinically normal dogs. International Journal ofBiometeorology, 26, pp. 

Gunn D, Jenkin P, Gunn A (1937) Menstrual periodicity: statistical observations on 
a large sample of normal cases. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British 
Empire, 44, pp. 839-79. 

Haviland A (1855) Climate, Weather and Disease. John Churchill. 

Hawke E (2003) Praise to the Moon: Magic and Myth of the Lunar Cycle. 2003. 
Llewellyn Publications. 

Hejl Z (1977) Daily, lunar, yearly and menstrual cycles and bacterial or viral infections 
in man. Journal of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research, 8(3-4), pp. 250—253. 

Hicks-Casey W, Potter D (1991) Effect of the full moon on a sample of 
developmentafly delayed, institutionalized women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 3, pp. 

Hisato T, Umemoto T (2004) Regarding lunar cycles and abdominal aortic 
aneurysm rupture. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 40, pp. 1261. 

Karnaukhova NA, Sergievich LA, Karnaukhov VA, KarnaukhovVN (2004) 
Changes in the synthetic activity of lymphocytes under the action of physical 
factors related to solar activity variation. Biophysics, 49(Suppl.i), pp. 552-559. 

33 1 


Klett M (2006) Principles of Biodynamic Spray and Compost Preparations. Floris 

Kolisko L (1936) The Moon and the Growth of Plants. Anthroposophical 
Agricultural Foundation. 

Kolisko L (1947) Gold and the Sun. The Total Eclipse of the Sun of 20th May 1947. 
Anthroposophic Press. 

Kolisko E, Kolisko L (1939) Agriculture of Tomorrow. John Jennings. 

Kollerstrom N (2004) Lunar effect on thoroughbred mare fertility: an analysis of 
14 years of data 1986-1999. Biological Rhythm Research, 35, pp. 317-327. 

Kollerstrom N, Steffert B (2003) Sex difference in response to stress by lunar 
month: a pilot study of four years' crisis-call frequency. BMC Psychiatry, 10th 
December, p. 20. 

Lacey L (1975) Lunaception: A Feminine Odyssey into Fertility and Contraception. 
Coward, McCann & Geoghegan. 

Law S (1986) The regulation of menstrual cycle and its relationship to the moon. 
Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 65, pp. 45-48. 

Lockley S, Tabandeh H, Skene D, Buttery B, Bird A, Defrace R, Arendt J (1995) 
Day time naps in blind people. Lancet, 346, pp. 1491. 

McMinn D (200) Market Timing By The Moon and The Sun. Twin Palms 

Mikulecky M, Rovensky J (2000) Gout attacks and lunar cycle. Medical 
Hypotheses, 55, pp. 24-25. 

Miles LEM, Raynal DM, Wilson MA (1977) Blind man goes lunar. New Scientist, 
1st December, p. 564. 

Naish F (1989) The Lunar Cycle: Astrological Fertility Control. Prism Press. 

Nishimura T, Fukushima M (2009) Why animals respond to the full moon: 
magnetic hypothesis. Bioscience Hypotheses, 2, pp. 399-401. 

Ostrander S (1972) Astrological Birth Control. Prentice-Hall. 

Palmer S, Rycroft M, Cermack M (2006) Solar and geomagnetic activity, 

33 2 


extremely low frequency magnetic and electric fields and human health at the 
earth's surface. Surveys in Geophysics, 27, pp. 557- 595. 

Payne SR, Deardon DJ, Abercrombie GF, Carlson GL (1989) Urinary retention 
and the lunisolar cycle: is it a lunatic phenomenon? BMJ, 299, pp. 1560-1562. 

Peters-Engl C, Frank W, Kerschbaum F, Denison U, Medl M, Sevalda P (2001) 
Lunar phases and survival of breast cancer patients - a statistical analysis of 3,757 
cases. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 70, pp. 131-135. 

Pliny Natural History, Volumes 5-8 (trans. H. Rackham). Loeb Classical Library. 

Qazi H, Philip J, Cornford P (2005) The transylvani effect - does the lunar cycle 
influence emergency urological admissions? European Urology Supplements, 4, 
p. 237. 

Raison C, Klein H, Steckler M (1999) The moon and madness reconsidered. 
Journal of Affective Disorders, 53, pp. 99-106. 

Robertson J (1832) An inquiry into the natural history of the menstrual function. 
Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, 37, p. 227. 

Roe K, Van den Bulck J (2006) Moon and media: lunar cycles and television 
viewing. Media Psychology, 8, pp. 287-299. 

Rogers W, Randall W (1972), Multiphasic variations in sunshine and thyroid 
activity during a year. International Journal of Biometeorology, 16, pp. 53-69. 

Ruegg S, Hunziker P, Marsch S, Schindler C (2007) Association of 
environmental factors with the onset of status epilepticus - experience from a 
tertiary care center intensive care unit. Annual Meeting of American Epilepsy 
Society, 1st December, Philadelphia, USA. 

Sarton G (1939) Lunar influences on living things. Isis, 30, pp. 495-507. 

Schneider SH, Miller JR, Crist E, Boston PJ (eds) (1991) Scientists Debate Gaia. 
MIT Press. 

Schwenk T (1965) Sensitive Chaos: The Creation of Flowing Forms in Water and Air. 
Steiner Press. 

Shifrine M (1982) Seasonal variation in immunity of humans. Biological Rhythm 
Research, 13, pp. 157-165. 



Stair JB (1897) A sea worm eaten by the Samoans. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 
6, pp. 141-144. 

Steiner R (1924) Spiritual foundations for the renewal of agriculture. Lectures 
held at Koberwitz, Silesia, 7~i6th June. 

Stoupel E (2002) The effect of geomagnetic activity on cardiovascular parameters. 
Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy, 56(Suppl. 2), pp. 247S-256S. 

Stoupel E, Babayev ES, Mustafa F, Abramson E, Israelevich P, Sulkes J (2008) 
Two groups of acute cardiac events and environmental physical activity. Russian 
Journal of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 12, pp. 354-359. 

Stoupel E, Babayev E, Shustarev P, Abramson E, Israelevich P, Sulkes J (2009) 
Traffic accidents and environmental physical activity. International Journal of 
Biometeorology, 53, pp. 523-534. 

Strestik J, Sitar J, Predeanu I, Botezat-Antonescu L (2001) Variations in the 
mortality with respect to lunar phases. Earth, Moon and Planets, 85-86, pp. 

Svanes C, Sothern R, Sorhye H (1998) Rhythmic patterns in incidence of peptic 
ulcer perforation over 5.5 decades in Norway. Chronobiology International, 15, pp. 

Tabandeh H, Lockley SW, Buttery R, Skene DJ, Defrance R, Arendt J, Bird AC 
(1988) Disturbance of sleep in blindness. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 126, 
pp. 707-712. 

Thakur CP, Sharma D (1984) Full moon and crime. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed), 289, 
pp. 1789-1791. 

Tomassen G (1995) Solar imprinting in the geomagnetic world: some biological 
consequences. International Journal of Biometeorology, 38, p. 109. 

Treloar R, Boynton R, Behn B, Brown B (1967) Variations of the human 
menstrual cycle through reproductive life" International Journal of Fertility, 12, pp. 

Ulluwishewa (R (1996) Biodynamic agriculture and traditional farming practices 
in Sri Lanka: a study of the potential of biodynamic agriculture for alleviating 
current agricultural problems. Working Paper. School of Geography, University 



of Leeds. 

Valandro L, Zordan M, Polanska M , Puricelli P, Colombo L (2004) Relevance 
of lunar periodicity in human spontaneous abortions. Gynecologic and Obstetric 
Investigation, 58, pp. 179-182. 

Vernadsky VI (1998) The Biosphere. Complete Annotated Edition Springer. 
Waldin M (2004) Biodynamic Wines. Mitchell Beazley. 

Weigert M, Kaali S, Kulin S, Feichtinger W (2002) Do lunar cycles influence in 
vitro fertilization results? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 19, pp. 

Wever R (1986) Characteristics of circadian rhythms in human functions. Journal 
of Neural Transmission, Suppl. 21, pp. 323-373. 

Yuana K, Zhenga L, Zhub Q (2006) Are investors moonstruck? Lunar phases 
and stock returns. Journal of Empirical Finance, 13, pp. 1-23. 

Zettinig G, Crevenna R, Pirich C, Dudczak R, Waldhoer T (2003) Appointments 
at a thyroid outpatient clinic and the lunar cycle. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrifte, 
115, pp. 298-301. 

Chapter 4: Magnetism - What's the Attraction all About? 

Alberto D, Busso L, Crotti G et al. (2008) Effects of static and low frequency 
alternating magnetic fields on the ionic electrolytic currents of glutamic acid 
aqueous solutions. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 27, pp. 25-39. 

Banik S, Bandyopadhyay S, Ganguly S (2003) Bioeffects of microwave - a brief 
review. Bioresource Technology, 87, 155-159. 

Bochu W, Xin C, Zhen W, Qizhong F, Hao Z, Liang R (2003) Biological effect of 
sound field stimulation on paddy rice seeds. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 
32, pp. 29-34. 

Brown FA, Jr, Barnwell FH, Webb HM (1964) Adaptation of the 
magnetoreceptive mechanism of mud-snails to geomagnetic strength. Biological 
Bulletin, 127, pp. 221-231. 



Cepeda, M Carr, D Sarquis.T Miranda, Ricardo N Garcia, J Zarate, C 
Static Magnetic Therapy Does Not Decrease Pain or Opioid Requirements: A 
Randomized Double- Blind Trial A & A February 2007 vol. 104 no. 2 290-294 

Chuanyun D, Bochu W, Chuanren D, Sakanishi A (2003) Low ultrasonic 
fermentation of riboflavin producing strain Eremothecium ashbyii. Colbids and 
Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 30, pp. 37-41. 

Cook C, Saucier D, Thomas A, Prato F (2009) Changes in human EEG alpha 
activity following exposure to two different pulsed magnetic field sequences. 
Biolectromagnetics, 30, pp. 9-20 . 

Crumpton M (2005) The Bernal lecture 2004: Are low frequency electromagnetic 
fields a health hazard? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological 
Sciences, 360, pp. 1223-1230. 

Daedalus (1991) Green music. Nature, 351, pp. 104. 

Davis R, Scott P (2000) Groovy plants: the influence of music on germinating 
seedlings and seedling growth. Journal of Experimental Botany, 51, p. 73. 

De Souza A, Garcia D, Sueiro L, Gilart F, Porras E, Licea L (2006) Pre-sowing 
magnetic treatments of tomato seeds increase the growth and yield of plants. 
Bioelectromagnetics, 27, pp. 247-257. 

De Souza A, Sueiro L, Gonzalez L, Licea L, Porras E, Gilart F (2008) 
Improvement of the growth and yield of lettuce plants by the non-uniform 
magnetic fields. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 27, pp. 173-184. 

Du Tremolet de Lacheisserie E, Gignoux D, Schlenker M (2002) Magnetism: 
Fundamentals. Springer. 

Elez-Martinez P, Martin-Belloso O (2007) Effects of high intensity pulsed electric 
field processing conditions on vitamin C and antioxidant capacity of orange juice 
and gazpacho a cold vegetable soup. Food Chemistry, 102, pp. 201-209. 

Finegold L, Flamm B (2006) Magnet therapy: extraordinary claims but no proved 
benefits. BMJ, 332, p. 4. 

Florez M, Carbonell M, Martinex E (2007) Exposure of maize seeds to stationary 
magnetic fields: effects on germination and early growth. Environmental and 
Experimental Botany, 59, pp. 68-75. 

33 ^ 


Gilbert W (1893) De Magnete (trans. P. Fleury Motteleay). Facsimile published by 
Dover Publications. 

Harlow T, Greaves C, White A, Brown L, Hart A, Ernst E (2004) Randomised 
controlled trial of magnetic bracelets for relieving pain in osteoarthritis of the hip 
and knee. BMJ, 329, pp. 1450-1454. 

Henry SL, Concannon MJ, Yee GJ (2008) The effect of magnetic fields on wound 
healing: experimental study and review of the literature. Eplasty: Journal of Burns 
and Wounds, 8, pp. e40. 

Hippe P, Uhlmann J (1959) Die Anwendung des Ultraschalls bei schlecht 
heilenden fracturen. Zentralblattfilr Chirurgie, 28, pp. 1105-1110. 

Huang H, Wang S (2008) The effects of inverted magnetic fields on early seed 
germination of mung beans. Bioelectromagnetics, 29, pp. 649-657. 

Iujuan W, Bochu W, Yi J, Defang L, Chuanren D, Xiaocheng Y, Sakanishi 
A (2003) Effects of sound stimulation on protective enzyme activities and 
peroxidase isoenzymes of chrysanthemum. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 
27, pp. 59-63. 

Jiping S, Bochu W, Meisheng L, Hongyang Z, Xin C, Chuanren D (2003) 
Optimal designs for sound wave stimulation on the growth conditions of 
chrysanthemum callus. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 30, pp. 93-98. 

Kalmijn JA (1971) The electric sense of sharks and rays. Journal of Experimental 
Biology, 55, pp. 371-383. 

Kirschvink JL, Winklhofer M, Walker MW (2010) Biophysics of magnetic 
orientation: strengthening the interface between theory and experimental design. 
Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 7(Suppl. 2), pp. S179-S191. 

Lambrozo J (2001) Electric and magnetic fields with a frequency of 50-60HZ: 
assessment of 20 years of research. Indoor and Built Environment, 10, pp. 

Lanchun S, Bochu W, Zhiming L, Chuanren D, Chuanyun D, Sakanishi A (2003) 
The research into the influence of low-intensity ultrasonic on the growth of S. 
cerevisiae. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 30, pp. 43-49. 

Lee SK, Beck NS, Kim HK (1996) Mischievous magnets: unexpected health 
hazard in children. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 31, pp. 1694-1695. 



Liboff AR (2007) Local and holistic electromagnetic therapies. Electromagnetic 
Biology and Medicine, 26, pp. 315-325. 

Lissmann HW (1958) The mechanism of object location in Gymnarchus niloticus 
and similar fish. Journal of Experimental Biology, 35, pp. 451-486. 

Markov M (2007) Therapeutic application of static magnetic fields. 
Environmentalist, 27, pp. 457-463. 

Markov M (2007) Expanding use of pulsed electromagnetic field therapies. 
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26, 257-274. 

Markov M (2009) What needs to be known about the therapy with static magnetic 
fields. Environmentalist, 29, pp. 169-176. 

Novikov V, Shelman I, Fesenko E (2008) Effect of weak static and low-frequency 
alternating magnetic fields on the fission and regeneration of the planarian 
Dugesia tigrina. Bioelectromagnetics, 29, pp. 387-393. 

Novitskaya G, Tserenove O, Kocheshkova T, Novitskii Y (2006) Effect of 
alternating magnetic field on the composition and level of lipids in radish 
seedlings. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 53, pp. 75-84. 

Null G (1998) Healing with Magnets. Four Walls Eight Windows. 

Nyjon K. Eccles. A Critical Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Static 
Magnets for Pain Relief. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary 
Medicine. June 2005, 11(3): 495-509. doi:io.io89/acm.2oc>5. 11.495. 

Ozel CA, Khawar KM, Arslan O (2008) A comparison of the gelling of isubgol, 
agar and gelrite on in vitro shoot regeneration and rooting of variety Samsun of 
tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.). Scientia Horticulturae, 117, pp. 174-181. 

Prioreschi P (2001) A History of Medicine, vol. iV. Horatius Press. 

Qadri S, Beevi N, Mani A, Leelapriya T, Dhilip K, Narayan P (2006) Sinusoidal 
magnetic fields and chawki (silkworm) rearing in sericulture. Electromagnetic 
Biology and Medicine, 25, pp. 145-153. 

Qin Y, Lee W, Choi Y, Kim T, (2003) Biochemical and physiological changes in 
plants as a result of different sonic exposures. Ultrasonics, 41, pp. 407-411. 

33 S 


Rose DF, Smith PD (1987) Magnetoencephalography and epilepsy research. 
Science, 238, pp. 329-335. 

Samad L, Ali M, Ramzi H (1999) Button battery ingestion: hazards of esophageal 
impaction. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 34, pp. 1527-1531. 

Sharma A, Gupta M (2006) Ultrasonic pre-irradiation effect upon aqueous 
enzymatic oil extraction from almond and apricot seeds. Ultrasonics 
Sonochemistry, 13, pp. 529-534. 

Shigemitsu T, Yamazaki K, Nakasono S, Kakikawa M (2007) A review of studies 
of the biological effects of electromagnetic fields in the intermediate frequency 
range. IEEJ Trans, 2, pp. 405-412. 

Subramanian S et al. (1969). A study on the effect of music on the growth and 
yield of paddy. Madras Agricultural Journal, 56, pp. 510-516. 

Tallquist, Hj. (1905), KARL SELIM LEM STROM: HIS LIFE AND WORK, Terr. 
Magn. Atmos. Electr., 10(2), 97-100, 

Tkalec M, Malaric K, Pevelak-Kozlina B (2005) Influence of 400, 900 and 1900 
MHz electromagnetic fields on Lemna minor growth and peroxidase activity. 
Biolectromagnetics, 26, pp. 185-193. 

Trebbi G, Borghini F, Lazzarato L, Torrigiana P, Calzoni G, Betti L (2007) 
Extremely low frequency weak magnetic fields enhance resistance of NN tobacco 
plants to tobacco mosaic virus and elicit stress-related biochemical activities. 
Bioelectromagnetics, 28, pp. 214-223. 

Vaezzadeh M, Noruzifar E, Faezah G, Salehkotahi M, Mehdian R (2006) 
Excitation of plant growth in dormant temperature by steady magnetic field. 
Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 302, pp. 105-108. 

Vashisth A, Nagarajan S (2008) Exposure of seeds to static magnetic 
field enhances germination and early growth characteristics in chickpea. 
Bioelectromagnetics, 29, pp. 571-578. 

Walfher M, Mayer F, Kafka W, Schutze N (2007) Effects of weak, low frequency 
pulsed electromagnetic fields on gene expression of human mesenchymal stem 
cells and chondrocytes. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26, pp. 179-190. 

Weinberger P, Measures M (1979) Effects of the intensity of audible sound on the 
growth and development of Rideau winter wheat. Canadian Journal of Botany, 57, 



pp. 1036-1039. 

Witzany G (2007) Bio-communication of plants. Nature Precedings. Available 
from: 1 

Xiaocheng Y, Bochu W, Chuanren D (2003) Effects of sound stimulation 
on energy metabolism of Actinidia chinensis callus. Colloids and Surfaces B: 
Biointerfaces, 30, pp. 67-72. 

Xiujuan W, Bochu W, Yi J, Chuanren D, Sakanishi A (2003) Effect of sound 
wave on the synthesis of nucleic acid and protein in chrysanthemum. Colloids and 
Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 29, pp. 99-102. 

Yano A, Hidaka E, Fujiwara K, Limoto M (2001) Induction of primary root 
curvature in radish seedlings in a static magnetic field. Bioelectromagnetics, 22, pp. 

Yano A, Ohashi Y, Hirasaki Y, Fujiwara K (2004) Effects of a 60Hz magnetic 
field on photosynthetic C0 2 uptake and early growth of radish seedlings. 
Bioelectromagnetics, 25, pp. 572-581. 

Yiyao L, Bochu W, Xuefeng L, Chuanren D, Sakanishi A (2002) Effects of sound 
field on the growth of chrysanthemum callus. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 
24, pp. 321-326. 



Chapter 5: The Bees and the Birds 

Baker CTG 1948 Understanding the Honey Bee. Camphill Press. 

Balmori A (2009) Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on 
wildlife. Pathophysiology, 16(2-3): 191-199. 

Balmori A, Hallberg O (2007) The urban decline of the house sparrow: a possible 
link with electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26, pp. 

Eskov EK, Sapozhnikov AM (1976) Mechanisms of generation and perception of 
electric fields by honeybees. Biophysik, 21, pp. 1097-1102. 

Everaert J, Bauwens D (2007) A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation 
from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows. 
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26, pp. 63-72. 

Fernie K, Bird D (2000) Evidence of Oxidative Stress in American Kestrels Exposed to 
Electromagnetic Fields. Avian Science and Conservation Centre, McGill University, 

Freeman D, Graham JH, Tracy M, Emlen JM, Alados C (1999) Developmental 
instability as a means of assessing stress in plant: a case study using 
electromagnetic fields and soybeans. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 160, 
pp. S157-S166. 

Frier H, Edwards E, Smith C, Neale S, Collett T. Magnetic compass cues and 
visual pattern learning in honeybees. Journal of Experimental Biology, 199, pp. 

Garaj-Vrhovac V, Gajski G, Trosic I, Pavicic I (2009) Evaluation of basal DNA 
damage and oxidative stress in Wistar rat leukocytes after exposure to microwave 
radiation. Toxicology, 259, pp. 107-112. 

Gould JL (1986) The locale map of honeybees: Do insects have cognitive maps? 
Science 1986; 232: pp. 861-863. 

Gould J, Towne W (1987) Evolution of the dance language. American Naturalist, 
130, pp. 317-338. 

Gould JL, Kirschvink JL, Deffeyes KS (1978) Bees have magnetic remanence. 
Science, 201, pp. 1026-1028. 



Gould JL, Kirschvink JL, Deffeyes KS, Brines ML (1980) Orientation of 
demagnetized bees. Journal of Experimental Biology, 80, pp. 1-8. 

Harst W, Kuhn J, Stever H (2006) Can electromagnetic exposure cause a change 
in behavior? Studying possible non-thermal influences on honeybees - an 
approach within the framework of educational informatics, http://agbi.uni- 

Hsu CY, Ko FY, Li CW, Fann K, Leu JT (2007) Magnetoreception system in 
honey bees (Apis mellifera). Plos One, 2, pp. 6395. 

Kavokin KV (2009) The puzzle of magnetic resonance effect on the magnetic 
compass of migratory birds. Bioelectromagnetics, 30, pp. 402-410. 

Kirschvink J, Kobayashi A (1991) Is geomagnetic sensitivity real? Replication 
of the Walker-Bitterman magnetic conditioning experiment in honey bees. 
American Zoologist, 31, pp. 169-185. 

Kirschvink JL, Padmanabha S, Boyce CK, Oglesby J (1997) Measurement of the 
threshold sensitivity of honeybees to weak, extremely low-frequency magnetic 
fields. Journal of Experimental Biology, 200, pp. 1363— 1368. 

Kuterbach D (1987) Do Bees Have a Magnetic Sense? Central Association of Bee- 

Maori E, Paldi N, Shafir S, Kalev H, Tsur E, Glick E, Sela I (2009) IAPV, a bee- 
affecting virus associated with colony collapse disorder can be silenced by dsRNA 
ingestion. Insect Molecular Biology, 18, pp. 55-60. 

Menzel R, Greggers U, Smith A et al. (2005) Honeybees navigate according to a 
map-like spatial memory. PNAS, 8, 3040-3045. 

Naug D (2009) Nutritional stress due to habitat loss may explain recent honeybee 
collapses. Biological Conservation, 142, pp. 2369-2372. 

Nichol H, Locke M (1995) Honeybees and magnetoreception. Science, 269, pp. 

Panagopoulos D, Karabarbounis A, Margaritis L (2004) Effect of GSM 900 MHz 
mobile phone radiation on the reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster. 
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 23, pp. 29-43. 



Schiff H (1991) Modulation of spike frequencies by varying the ambient magnetic 
field and magnetite candidates in bees (Apis mellifera). Comparative Biochemistry 
and Physiology A, 100, pp. 975-985. 

Schmitt DE, Esch HE (1993) Magnetic orientation of honeybees in the laboratory. 
Naturwissenschajien, 80, pp. 41-43. 

Sharpe R (2009) Honey bee collapse disorder is possibly caused by a dietary 
pyrethrum deficiency. Bioscience Hypotheses, 2, pp. 239-440. 

Sherman P, Seeley T, Reeve H (1998) Parasites, pathogens and polyandry in 
honeybees. American Society of Naturalists, 151, pp. 392-396. 

Sinha RK (2008) Chronic non-thermal exposure of modulated 2450 MHz 
microwaves radiation alters thyroid hormones and behaviour of male rats. 
International Journal of Radiation Biology, 84, pp. 505-513. 

Towne W (1995) Frequency discrimination in the hearing of honey bees. Journal 
of Insect Behaviour , 8, pp. 281-286. 

vanEngelsdorp D, Evans JD, Saegerman C et al. (2009) Entombed pollen: a new 
condition in honey bee colonies associated with increased risk of colony mortality. 
Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 101, pp. 147-149. 

Walker M (1998) On a wing and a vector. A model for magnetic navigation by 
homing pigeons. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 192, pp. 341-349. 

Walker M, Bitterman M (1985) Conditioned responding to magnetic fields by 
honeybees. Journal of Comparative Physiology A,iy?, pp. 67-71. 

Walker M, Bitterman M (1989) Honeybees can be trained to respond to very 
small changes in geomagnetic field intensity. Journal of Experimental Biology, 145, 
pp. 489-494. 

Walker MM, Baird DL, Bitterman ME (1989) Failure of stationary but not for 
flying honeybees (Apis mellifera) to respond to magnetic field stimuli. Journal of 
Comparative Physiology, 103, pp. 62-69. 

Walker M, Diebel CE, Pankhurst P, Green C, Hough C, Montgomery J (1997) 
Structure and function of the vertebrae magnetic sense. Nature, 390, pp. 371-376. 

Warnke U (1976) Effects of electric charges on honeybees. Bee World, 57, pp. 



Warnke U (2009) Bees, Birds and Mankind: Destroying Nature by Electrosmog. 
Effects of Wireless Communication Techonologies Series. Competence Initiative 
for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy. 

Wiltschko R, Wiltschko W (2005) Magnetic orientation and magnetoreception in 
birds and other animals. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 191, pp. 675-693. 

Wiltschko R, Wiltschko W (2007) When does bearing magnets affect the size of 
deflection in clock-shifted homing pigeons? Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 
61, pp. 493-495- 

Chapter 6: Technology -the invisible invader 

Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J (2008) Effect of cell phone 
usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational 
study. Fertility and Sterility, 89, pp. 124-128. 

Belotti M (2007) Endogenous cyclotron ion resonance therapy for keratoconus: 
preliminary results. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 2007, 26, pp. 289-291. 

Benvenuto Resolution 2006. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25, pp. 
197-2006. Signed by: Fiorella Belpoggi, European Foundation for Oncology 
and Environmental Sciences; Carl F. Blackman, Raleigh, NC, USA; Martin 
Blank, Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York, USA; Natalia 
Bobkova, Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region; Francesco 
Boella, National Institute of Prevention and Worker Safety, Venice, Italy; Zhaojin 
Cao, National Institute of Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease 
Control, China; Allessandro D. Allessandro, Physician, Mayor of Benevento, 
Italy, (2001-2006); Enrico D. Emilia, National Institute for Prevention and 
Worker Safety, Monteporzio, Italy; Emilio Del Giuduice, National Institute for 
Nuclear Physics, Milan, Italy; Antonella De Ninno, Italian National Agency 
For Energy, Environment and Technology, Frascati, Italy; Alvaro A. De Salles, 
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil; Livio Giuliani, 
East Veneto and South Triol, National Institute for Prevention and Worker 
Safety, Camerino University; Yury Grigoryev, Institute of Biophysics, Chairman, 
Russian National Committee NIERP; Settimo Grimaldi, Institute of Neurobiology 
and Molecular Medicine, National Research, Rome, Italy; Lennart Hardell, 
Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden; Magda Havas, 
Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, Ontario, Canada; 
Gerard Hyland, Warwick University, UK, International Institute of Biophysics, 
Germany, EM Radiation Trust, UK; Olle Johansson, Experimental Dermatology 



Unit, Neuroscience Department, Karolinska Institute, Sweden; Michael Kundi, 
Head, Institute Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria 
; Henry C. Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, 
Seattle, USA; Mario Ledda, Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine, 
National Council for Research, Rome, Italy; Yi-Ping Lin, Center of Health Risk 
Assessment and Policy, National Taiwan University, Taiwan; Antonella Lisi, 
Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine, National Research Council, 
Rome, Italy; Fiorenzo Marinelli, Institute of Immunocytology, National Research 
Council, Bologna, Italy; Elihu Richter, Head, Occupational and Environmental 
Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Israel; Emanuela Rosola, Institute of 
Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine, National Research Council, Rome, Italy; 
Leif Salford, Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, Lund University, Sweden; 
Nesrin Seyhan, Head, Department of Biophysics, Director, Gazi NIRP Center, 
Ankara, Turkey; Morando Soffritti, Scientific Director, European Foundation for 
Oncology and Environmental Sciences; B. Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy; Stanislaw 
Szmigielski, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland; 
Mikhail Zhadin, Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region. 

Campioli GZ (2007) Case study: eosinophilic granuloma. Electromagnetic Biology 
and Medicine, 26, pp. 333-334. 

Castellacci P (2007). Case study: peripheric joint disorders. Electromagnetic 
Biology and Medicine, 26, pp. 331. 

Ciafaloni A (2007) Cyclotronic ion resonance therapy and arthralgia. 
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26, pp. 299-303. 

Crescentini F (2007) The autistic syndrome and endogenous ion cyclotron 
resonance: state of the art. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26, pp. 305-309. 

D'Andrea P, Maurizio L (2007) Effects of endogenous cyclotronic ionic resonance 
(ICR) on macular diabetic edema: preliminary results. Electromagnetic Biology and 
Medicine, 26, pp. 293-298. 

Fejes I, Zavaczki Z, Szallosi J, Koloszar S, Daru J, Kovacs L, Pal A (2005) Is there 
a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality? Archives of Andrology, 
51, 385-393- 

Habash RWY (2008) Bioeffects and Therapeutic Applications of Electromagnetic 
Energy. CRC Press. 

Havas M (2006) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty 
electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagnetic 



Biology and Medicine, 25, pp. 259-268. 

Havas M (2008) Dirty electricity elevates blood sugar among electrically sensitive 
diabetics and may explain brittle diabetes. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 
27, pp. 135-146. 

Kato M (ed.) (2006) Electromagnetics in Biology. Springer. 

Leszcynski D, Xu Z (2010) Mobile phone radiation health risk controversy: the 
reliability and sufficiency of science behind the safety standards. Health Research 
Policy and Systems, 8, p. 2. 

Liboff AR (2007) Local and holistic electromagnetic therapies. Electromagnetic 
Biology and Medicine, 26, pp. 315-325. 

Liboff AR (2007) 'Local and holistic electromagnetic therapies', pp. 315-325 
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26, 

Mancuso M, Ghezzi V, Di Fede G (2007) Utilization of extremely low frequency 
(ELF) magnetic fields in chronic disease; five years experience: three case reports. 
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26, pp. 311— 313. 

Mansfield NJ (2005) Human Response to Vibration. CRC Press. 

Peratta C, Peratta A (2010) Modelling the Human Body Exposure to ELF Electric 
Fields. Topics in Engineering, Vol. 47. WIT Press. 

Piccardi G (1962) The Chemical Basis of Medical Climatology. Charles C. Thomas. 

Rea WJ, Pan Y, Yenyves EJ, Sujisawa I, Suyama H, Samadi N, Ross GH. 
Electromagnetic field sensitivity. Journal ofBioelectricity, 10, 241-256. 

Report of an Independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (2006) 
Power Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Melatonin and the Risk of Breast Cancer 
(RCE-i). Health Protection Agency. 

Roosli M (2008) Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non specific 
symptoms of ill health: a systematic review. Environmental Research, 107, pp. 

Rossi E, Corsetti MT, Sukkar S, Poggi C (2007) Extremely low frequency 
electromagnetic fields prevent chemotherapy induced myelotoxicity. 
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 26, pp. 277-281. 



Rubin GJ, Nieto-Hernandez R, Wessely S (2010) Idiopathic environmental 
intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields: an updated systematic review of 
provocation studies. Bioelectromagnetics, 31, pp. 1-11. 

Santi C, Turco A (2007) Case study: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Electromagnetic 
Biology and Medicine, 26, pp. 329-330. 

Sher L (2000) The effects of natural and man-made electromagnetic fields on 
mood and behaviour: the role of sleep disturbances. Medical Hypotheses, 54, pp. 

Stavroulakis P (ed.) (2003) Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. Springer. 

Vallesi G, Raggi F, Rufini S, Gizzi S, Ercolani E, Rossi R (2007) Effects of 
cyclotronic ion resonance on human metabolic processes: a clinical trial and one 
case report. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 2007, 26, pp. 283-288. 

Walker C, Seitelman L, Mcelhaney J (1982) Effects of high intensity 60Hz fields 
on bone growth. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 1, pp. 339-349. 

Wever R (1973) Human circadian rhythms under the influence of weak 
electric fields and the different aspects of these studies. International Journal of 
Biometeorology, 17, pp. 227-232. 

Chapter 7: SirJ.C.Bose 

Response in the Living and Non-living, 1902 

Plant response as a means of physiological investigation, 1906 

Comparative Electro-physiology: A Physico-physiological Study, 1907 

Researches on Irritability of Plants, 1913 

The physiology of photosynthesis, 1924 

The Nervous Mechanisms of Plants, 1926 

Plant Autographs and Their Revelations, 1927 

J.C.Bose, Collected Physical Papers. 1927 



Growth and tropic movements of plants, 1928 
Motor mechanism of plants, 1928 

Chapter 8: Plants 

Bailey-Lloyd C (2003-2004) Classical music therapy. http://ezinearticles. 

Baluska F, Mancuso S (2009) Signaling in Plants. Springer. 

Begich N, Slade BB ( 2005-2006) French physicist creates new melodies - plant 

Berman G, Jonides J, Kaplan S (2008) The cognitive benefits of interacting with 
nature. Psychological Science, 19, pp. 1207-1212. 

Booth DT (xxxx) Innovation in wildland shrub establishment. Environmental 
Geochemistry and Health (1984), volume 6, pp. 111-114 

Braam J, Davis RW (1990) Rain induced, wind-induced, and touch-induced 
expression of calmodulin and calmodulin-related genes in Arabidopsis. Cell, 60, pp. 

Braam J, Davis RW (1990) Rain induced, wind-induced and touch-induced 
expression of calmodulin and calmodulin-related genes in Arabidopsis. Archives of 
Environmental Contaminaton and Toxicology, 60, pp. 357-364. 

Bringslimark T, Hartig T, Patil G (2009) The psychological benefits of indoor 
plants: a critical review of the experimental literature. Journal of Environmental 
Psychology, 29, pp. 422-433. 

Bruin J, Dicke M (2001) Chemical information transfer between wounded and 
unwounded plants: backing up the future. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 29, 
pp. 1103-1113. 

Bruin J, Sabels MW, Dicke M (1995) Do plants tap SOS signals from their 
infested neighbours? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 167-170. 

Caldwell M, Johnston R, McDaniel JG, Warkentin K (2010) Vibrational signalling 
in the agonistic interactions of red-eyed treefrogs. Current Biology, 20, pp. 




Carbonell MV, Martinez E, Diaz JE, Amaya JM, Florez M (2004) Influence of 
magnetically treated water on germination of signalgrass seeds. Seed Science and 
Technology, 32, pp. 617-619. 

Chang LW, Meier JR, Smith MK (1997) Application of plant and earthworm 
bioessays to evaluate remediation of a lead contaminated soil. Archives of 
Environmental Contaminaton and Toxicology, 32, pp. 166-171. 

Cook CM, Saucier DM, Thomas AW, Prato FS (2009) Changes in human 
EEG alpha activity following exposure to two different pulsed magnetic field 
sequences. Bioelectromagnetics, 30, pp. 9 -20. 

Davies E (2006) Electrical signals in plants: facts and hypothesis. In: Volkov AG 
(ed.) Plant Electrophysiology - Theory and Methods, pp. 407-418. Springer. 

Davis R, Scott P (2000) Groovy plants: the influence of music on germinating 
seedlings and seedling growth. Journal of Experimental Botany, 51, p. 73. 

Demiray H (2006) Effect of static electric fields in root cells of Viciafaba. 
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25, pp. 53-60. 

Dudley S, File A (2007) Kin recognition in an annual plant. Biology Letters, 3, pp. 

Ekici N, Dane F, Mamedova L, Metin I, Huseyinov M (2007) The effects of 
different musical elements on root growth and mitosis in onion (Allium cepa) 
root apical meristem. Musical and biological experimental study. Asian Journal of 
Plant Science, 6, pp. 369-373. 

Faculty of Public Health (2010) Great Outdoors: How our Natural Health Service 
Uses Green Space to Improve Wellbeing. Briefing Statement. Faculty of Public 

Fjeld T (2000) The effect of interior planting on health and discomfort among 
workers and school children. HortTechnology , 10, pp. 46-52. 

Goldsworthy A (2006) Effects of electrical and electromagnetic fields on plants 
and related topics. In: Volkov AG (ed.) Plant Electrophysiology - Theory and 
Methods, pp. 247-248. Springer. 

Gurcay E, Yuzer S, Eksioglu E, Bal A, Cakci A (2008) Stanger bath therapy for 



ankylosing spondylitis: illusion or reality? Clinical Rheumatology, 27, 913-917. 

Hartig T, Mang M, Evans GW (1991) Restorative effects of natural environment 
experiences. Environment and Behaviour, 23, pp. 3-26. 

Hou TZ, Mooneyham RE (1999) Applied studies of plant meridian system. I: The 
effect of agri-wave technology on yield and quality of tomato. American Journal of 
Chinese Medicine, XXVII, pp. 1-10. 

Hou TZ, Luan JY, Wang JY, Li MD (1994) Experimental evidence of a plant 
meridian system. Ill: The sound characteristics of phylodendron (Alocasia) and 
effects of acupuncture on those properties. American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 
XXII( 3-4), pp. 205-214. 

Huang H, Wang S (2008) The effects of inverter magnetic fields on early seed 
germination of mung beans. Bioelectromagnetics, 29, pp. 649-657. 

Jones D (1991) Green music. Nature, 351, p. 104. 

Karban R (2008) Plant behaviour and communication. Ecology Letters, n, pp. 

Konijnendijk C, Nilsson K, Randrup T, Schipperijn J (2005) Urban Forests and 
Trees. Springer. 

Kowarik I, Korner S (2005) Wild Urban Woodlands. Springer. 

Lieberman GA, Hoody LL (1998) Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the 
Environment as an Integrating Context for Learning. State Education and 
Environment Roundtable, San Diego. Science Wizards. 

Lohr VI, Pearson-Mims C, Goodwin GK (1996) Interior plants may improve 
worker productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. Journal of 
Environmental Horticulture, 14, pp. 97-100. 

Mailer CJ (2004) Nature in the schoolyard: investigations into the potential of 
'hands-on' contact with nature in improving the mental health and wellbeing 
of primary school children. In: Martens B, Keul AG (eds) Evaluation in Progress 
- Strategies for Environmental Research and Implementation. IAPS 18 Conference 
Proceedings. International Association for People-Environment Studies. 

Mancuso S, Shabala S (2007) Rhythms in Plants. Springer. 

Mancuso S, Shabala S (2010) Waterlogging Signalling and Tolerance in Plants. 




Mencuccinni M, Grace J, Moncrieff J, Mcnaughton KG (2004) Forests at the 
Land-Atmosphere Interface. CAB I Publishing. 

Milla R, Forero D, Escudero A, Iriondo J (2009) Growing with siblings: a 
common ground for cooperation or for fiercer competition among plants? 
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 267, pp. 2531-2540. 

Mishra NS, Mallick BN, Sopory SK (2001) Electrical signal from root to shoot 
on sorghum bicolor: induction of leaf opening and evidence for fast extracellular 
propagation. Plant Science, 160, pp. 237-245. 

Novitskaya G, Kocheshkova T, Novitskii Y (2006) Magnetically induced root 
curvature. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 53, pp, 638-648. 

O'Donnell L (1999) Music power: The report, 
odonnell /report.html. 

Ravitz LJ (1970) Electromagnetic field monitoring of changing state-function, 
including hypnotic states. Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry 
and Medicine, 17, pp. 119-27. 

Retallack DL (1973) The Sound of Music and Plants. DeVorss. 

Robards AW, Lucas WJ, Pitts JD, Jongsma HJ, Spray DC (1990) Parallels in Cell 
to cell Junctions in Plants and Animals. NATO AS I series H, Cell Biology, Volume 
46. Springer. 

Robertson D (1998) About positive music: the plant experiments. http://www. 

Rojas E, Herrera LA, Sordo M, Gonsebatt ME, Montero R, Rodriguez R, 
Ostrosky-Wegman P (1993) Mitotic index and cell proliferation kinetics for 
identification of antineoplastic activity. Anticancer Drugs, 46, pp. 637-640. 

Rooke A (1985) Searching for the lost chord: ancient uses and modern trends. 

Schultz J (2002) Biochemical ecology: how plants fight dirty. Nature, 416, pp. 

Schultz, J, Baldwin I (1983) Rapid changes in tree leaf chemistry induced by 
damage: evidence for communication between plants. Science, 221, pp. 277-279. 

35 1 


Seregin IV, Ivanov VB (2001) Physiological aspects of cadmium and lead toxic 
effects on higher plants. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 48, pp. 323-344. 

Shabala S (2006) Oscillations in plants. In: Baluska F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D 
(eds) Communication in Plants, pp. 261-275. Springer. 

Shang C (1996) The meridian system and the mechanism of acupuncture. 
2ist,The VXM Network, 

Shubin N (2008) Your Inner Fish. Pantheon. 

Smith A, Pitt M (2009) Sustainable workplaces: improving staff health and well 
being using plants. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11, pp. 52-63. 

Stankovic B (2006) Electrophysiology of plant gravitropism. In: Volkov AG (ed.) 
Plant Electrophysiology - Theory and Methods, pp. 424-431. Springer. 

Subramanian S (1969) A study on the effect of music on the growth and yield of 
paddy. Madras Agricultural Journal, 56, pp. 510-516. 

Takabayashi J, Arimura G (2001) Do plants communicate with each other via 
airborne signals? AgroBiotechNet 3: ABN065. 

Talbott JA, Stern D, Ross J, Gillen C (1976) Flowering plants as a therapeutic/ 
environmental agent in a psychiatric hospital. Hortscience, 11, pp. 365-366. 

Talos (2001) If only corn had ears. ASPB News, 286, pp. 8-9. 

Taylor A, Kuo F (2009) Children with attention deficits concentrate better after 
walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12, pp. 402-409. 

Tkalec M, Malaric K, Pevalek-Kozlina B (2005) Influence of 400, 900 and 1900 
MHz electromagnetic fields on lemma minor growth and peroxidase activity. 
Bioelectromagnetics, 26, pp. 185-193. 

Tompkins P, Bird C (1989) The Secret Life of Plants. HarperCollins. 
Tompkins P, Bird C (1998) Secrets of the Soil. Earthpulse press. 
Tudge C (2006) The Secret Life of Trees. Penguin. 

35 2 


Turkington R (1989) The growth distribution and neighbour relationships of 
Trifolium repens in a permanent pasture. Journal of Ecology, 77, pp. 734-746. 

Turkington R, Sackville-Hamilton R, Gliddon C (1991) Within-population 
variation in localized and integrated responses of Trifolium repens to biotically 
patchy environments. Oecologia, 86, pp. 183-192. 

Vashisth A, Nagarajan S (2008) Exposure of seeds to static magnetic 
field enhances germination and early growth characteristics in chickpea. 
Bioelectromagnetics, 29, pp. 571-578. 

Volkov A (2006) Plant Electrophysiology: Theory and Methods. Springer. 

Volkov A, Brown C (2006) Electrochemistry of plant life. In: Volkov AG (ed.) 
Plant Electrophysiology - Theory and Methods, pp. 437-441. Springer. 

Wagner E, Lehner L, Veit J, Normann J, Vervliet-Scheebaum M, Albrechtova 
JTP (2006) Control of plant development by hydro-electrochemical signal 
transduction: a way for understanding photoperiodic flower induction. In: Volkov 
AG (ed.) Plant Electrophysiology - Theory and Methods, pp. 483-501. Springer. 

Weinberger P, Measures M (1979) Effects of the intensity of audible sound on the 
growth and development of Rideau winter wheat. Canadian Journal of Botany, 57, 
pp. 1036-1039. 

Wicke RW (2002) The Mozart effect. Herbalist Review, Issue 2002 No. 1. http:// 
www.rmhiherbal. org / review / 2 o o 2 - 1 .html 

Wierzbicka M (1987) Lead translocation and localization in Allium cepa roots. 
Canadian Journal of Botany, 65, pp. 4008-4026. 

Witzany G (2007) Bio-communication of plants. Nature Precedings. hdkioioi/ 
npre.2007.1429. 1 

Wulder M, Franklin S (2003) Remote Sensing of Forest Environments. Kluwer 

Wulder M, Franklin S (2007) Understanding Forest Disturbance and Spatial 
Pattern. Taylor & Francis. 






I would like to thank the following people who have 
helped me write the book: 

Teresa Godbold, Carrie Walker, Rebecca Haywood, 
Harriet Venn, Rosalie Silverstone, Hank Scott 

Dragos Grosu, Razvan Alexa, Andrei Danila, Lloyd Geddes, 
Steve Lodewyke, Paul Price, Victoria Beer, Brian Williams. 






About the author 

Matthew Silverstone is a serial entrepreneur. He has a degree in economics 
and a masters degree in international business. He was as one of the youngest 
executive producers of his generation within the film industry, at aged only 22, 
whereby he attempted to raise finance for major feature films. He moved on to 
developing musical talent and helping to develop the careers of budding artists. 

Having attempted and failed to make his millions before he was 25 he decided 
to work within less glamorous sectors of business and developed successful 
companies within the cleaning, building, property development, childcare 
and transport sectors. His career came to a halt midway through the launch 
of a major internet social network site due to the illness of his son, for whom 
he became a full time carer. It was watching the lack of medical help from the 
established sectors of science that led him to start questioning everything that 
he had been told about science. 

He comes from a very traditional medical background, both his brother and 
father are Professors of medicine, so it was not easy for him to shed off his 
traditional medical ideas and start questioning the very foundation of these 
concepts. Once he started to do so, and found that the answers to the questions 
were not what he thought, he started to treat the whole idea as if it were a new 

business and spent two years researching and developing the ideas behind 
Blinded By Science. His son has since made a full recovery and this book helps 
to explain many of the ideas why doctors will never find cures for some of the 
major illnesses that are affecting society today.